Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/5 of 3 January 2018 amending Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU as regards the symptoms of Epitrix cucumeris (Harris), Epitrix papa sp. n., Epitrix subcrinita (Lec.) and Epitrix tuberis (Gentner) and the establishment of relevant demarcated areas (notified under document C(2017) 8788)
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/decision/2018/5@2018-01-03/en
Contents
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having 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, and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Since the last amendment of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU by Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1359, experience has shown that the superficial galleries and the associated small holes dug by the larvae under the epidermis of the potato tubers are reliable signs of infestation by the specified organisms. Therefore, the provisions laid down in Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU, as regards inspection, survey, notification and demarcation measures should not only apply for the presence of the specified organisms on potato tubers but also where these signs have been observed without the specified organisms.
(2) Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.
(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1 Amendments to Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU
Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU is amended as follows:
(1)(a) point (a) of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) is replaced by the following: intensive monitoring for the presence of the specified organisms and of the signs of infestation by those organisms on potato tubers, through appropriate inspections on potato plants and, where appropriate, other host plants, including fields where those plants are growing, within at least a radius of 100 m of the packing facility;;
(2) Article 4 is replaced by the following:
Article 1 Amendments to Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU
(2)
Article 4 Surveys and notifications as regards the specified organisms
1. Member States shall conduct annual official surveys for the presence of the specified organisms and the signs of infestation by those organisms on potato tubers and, where appropriate, other host plants, including fields where potato tubers are growing, in their territory. Member States shall notify the results of those surveys to the Commission and the other Member States by 30 April of each year.
2. Any presence or suspected occurrence of a specified organism, or of the signs of infestation by that organism on potato tubers, shall immediately be notified to the responsible official bodies.;
Article 1 Amendments to Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU
(3) Article 5(1) is replaced by the following:
1. 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 or of the signs of infestation by that organism on potato tubers 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. It shall take measures, as laid down in Section 2 of Annex II.;
(4) Annexes I and II are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.
Article 2 Addressees
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 3 January 2018. For the Commission Vytenis Andriukaitis Member of the Commission
ANNEX
ANNEX
Annexes I and II to Implementing Decision 2012/270/EU are amended as follows:
(1)(a) in Annex I, Section 1, point (3)(a) is replaced by the following: it shall include the information that the potato tubers have been found free from the specified organisms concerned and from the signs of infestation by those organisms on potato tubers, and do not contain more than 0,1 % of soil in an official examination carried out immediately prior to export;;
(2) Annex II is amended as follows:
(2)
(a) Section 1 is amended as follows:
(a)
(i)(a) point (1)(a) is replaced by the following: an infested zone which includes at least the fields where the presence of the specified organism or of the signs of infestation by that organism on potato tubers has been confirmed, as well as fields where infested potato tubers have been grown; and;
(ii) points (3), (4) and (5) are replaced by the following:
(ii)
(3) When establishing the infested zone and the buffer zone, Member States shall take into account the following elements: the biology of the specified organisms, the level of infestation, the distribution of host plants, the evidence of establishment of the specified organisms and the capacity of the specified organisms to spread naturally.
(4) If the presence of a specified organism or of the signs of infestation by that organism on potato tubers is confirmed outside the infested zone, the delimitation of the infested zone and buffer zone shall be reviewed and changed accordingly.
(5) Where as regards a demarcated area, based on the surveys referred to in Article 4(1), neither the specified organism concerned nor the signs of infestation by that organism on potato tubers have been detected for a period of two years, the Member State concerned shall confirm that that organism is no longer present in that area and that the area ceases to be demarcated. It shall notify the Commission and the other Member States.;
(b)(2) in Section 2, point (2) is replaced by the following: intensive monitoring for the presence of the specified organisms or of the signs of infestation by those organisms on potato tubers through appropriate inspections;.
Versions
Cited by
- Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2020 — Aquind v ACER (Case T-735/18) Notice · Grade B
EnergyArticle 17 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009Decision of ACER refusing a request for exemption relating to new electrical interconnectorsAppeal before the Board of Appeal of ACERIntensity of the review2021/C 19/47Language of the case: English Applicant: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Goldberg and C. Davis, Solicitors, and E. White, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet, E. Tremmel, C. Gence-Creux and A. Hofstadter, acting as Agents) Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i
- Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 16 January 2025 Joined Cases C‑281/23 P and C‑282/23 P Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A., RTE Réseau de transport d’électricité, Svenska kraftnät, TenneT TSO BV v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) Opinion · Grade B
Even though, in the judgment in ACER v Aquind, the Agency argued that the Board of Appeal had, in fact, carried out a full review of the complex technical questions, the Court of Justice confirmed that the General Court had not erred in law, since it was expressly stated in paragraph 52 of the decision of the Board of Appeal that it intended to limit its review (of Decision No 05/2018) to a manifest error of assessment.
- Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 15 September 2022 Case C‑46/21 P European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) v Aquind Ltd Opinion · Grade B
The facts that gave rise to the dispute are set out in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the judgment under appeal. Of these I shall highlight the following. Aquind Ltd, a private limited company incorporated in the United Kingdom, is the project promoter for an interconnector (the Aquind Interconnector) connecting the electricity transmission systems in the United Kingdom and France. On 17 May 2017, Aquind submitted a request for an exemption for the Aquind Interconnector to the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in France and the United Kingdom. Having failed to reach an agreement, those two authori
- Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) 18 November 2020 Judgment · Grade B
In Case T‑735/18, Aquind Ltd, established in Wallsend (United Kingdom), represented by S. Goldberg, Solicitor, E. White, lawyer, and C. Davis, Solicitor, applicant,v European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), represented by P. Martinet, E. Tremmel, C. Gence-Creux and A. Hofstadter, acting as Agents, defendant, APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Decision A-001-2018 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 17 October 2018 which upheld Decision No 05/2018 of ACER of 19 June 2018 refusing a request for exemption relating to an electrical interconnector con
- Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) 18 November 2020 Judgment · Grade B
By Decision No 05/2018 of 19 June 2018 (the decision of the Agency), ACER refused the request for an exemption for the Aquind interconnector. It took the view that although the applicant satisfied the conditions for obtaining an exemption listed in Article 17(1)(a) and (c) to (f) of Regulation No 714/2009, the condition laid down in Article 17(1)(b) thereof, according to which the level of risk attached to the investment must be such that the investment would not take place unless an exemption is granted, was not satisfied. In particular, it noted that in April 2018, the Aquind interconnector
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
By its appeal, the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2020, Aquind v ACER, (T‑735/18, the judgment under appeal, EU:T:2020:542), by which the General Court annulled Decision A-001-2018 of the Board of Appeal of ACER (the Board of Appeal) of 17 October 2018 (the decision at issue), by which Decision No 05/2018 of ACER of 19 June 2018 refusing a request for exemption relating to an electrical interconnector connecting the electricity transmission systems in the United
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
By Decision No 05/2018, ACER refused Aquind’s request on the ground that one of the conditions necessary for obtaining such an exemption was not satisfied, in the present case the condition laid down in Article 17(1)(b) of that regulation, according to which the level of risk attached to the investment must be such that the investment would not take place unless an exemption is granted.
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
By the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision, after upholding Aquind’s ninth plea in law, alleging insufficient scrutiny by the Board of Appeal of Decision No 05/2018, and, for the sake of completeness, its fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the relationship between Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 and Article 12 of Regulation No 347/2013, which it also upheld. Consequently, the General Court annulled the decision at issue and dismissed the action as to the remainder.
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
In support of its ninth plea, Aquind claimed, in essence, that the Board of Appeal, during the examination of its appeal, had limited its review to a review of ACER’s alleged manifest error of assessment when it adopted Decision No 05/2018. Such a limited review is contrary to Article 19(5) of Regulation No 713/2009.
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
In the alternative, ACER submits that, in any event, in the present case, the Board of Appeal did not fail to review ACER’s complex technical and economic assessments in the context of its examination which led to the adoption of Decision No 05/2018.
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
Aquind submits that the first ground of appeal must be rejected and that the General Court was right to hold that the Board of Appeal was required to conduct a full review of Decision No 05/2018, not limited to manifest error of assessment.
- Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 9 March 2023 Judgment · Grade B
That argument cannot succeed, since it is expressly stated in paragraph 52 of the decision at issue that the Board of Appeal intended to limit its review of Decision No 05/2018 to a manifest error of assessment.
- Action brought on 16 June 2023 — Aquind v ACER (Case T-342/23) Notice · Grade B
First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the refusal to grant an exemption to AQUIND Interconnector in the Agency decision (Decision No 05/2018 of 19 June 2018). The applicant submits that unlawfulness is established by the fourth ground for annulment in the judgment of the General Court in Case T-735/18, as upheld by the Court of Justice in Case C-46/21 P. The Agency deliberately exceeded the limits of its discretion by imposing an additional condition for the grant of an exemption pursuant to Regulation (EC) 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The Agency’s conduct also