Council Decision (EU) 2024/3086 of 2 December 2024 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the Energy Charter Conference

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3086 11.12.2024
(1) The Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’) and its Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects (‘PEEREA’) were concluded by the European Communities by means of Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom(1)and entered into force on 16 April 1998.
(2) Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA designated the Government of the Portuguese Republic as the depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. On 1 February 2024, the Portuguese Republic notified its intention to withdraw from the ECT and PEEREA. In this regard, the Government of the Portuguese Republic will cease performing its function as depositary. The withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic from the ECT and PEEREA will take effect on 2 February 2025.
(3) An amendment to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA is necessary to designate a new depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. The Contracting Parties to the ECT (‘Contracting Parties’) agreed in negotiations to add such an amendment to the modernised text of the ECT, in order to designate the Energy Charter Secretariat (the ‘Secretariat’) as a new depositary. The Contracting Parties have also agreed to amend PEEREA similarly. The Contracting Parties have further agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference a new understanding with respect to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA on the roles of the Secretariat as depositary. Furthermore, given that not all Contracting Parties will apply the modernised ECT provisionally after its adoption, the Contracting Parties agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference two decisions, which will designate the Secretariat as interim depositary from 2 February 2025, pending the entry into force of amendments to the ECT and PEEREA.
(4) Pursuant to Article 34 of the ECT, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to the ECT. Pursuant to Article 12 of PEEREA, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to PEEREA.
(5) The Energy Charter Conference is to adopt the proposed acts at its meeting of 3 December 2024 with respect to the ECT and by correspondence, launched on 6 November 2024 with a deadline on 30 January 2025, with respect to PEEREA. The acts to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference will be binding on the Union.
(6) It is appropriate for the Union not to exercise its vote at the Energy Charter Conference voting on the proposed amendments to the ECT and PEEREA, as well as on the proposed understandings and decisions. It is also appropriate to establish the position to be taken by the Member States that are Contracting Parties, acting jointly, for matters falling within the Union’s competence. That position is without prejudice to the division of competences between the Union and the Member States. That position complements the position laid down in Council Decision (EU) 2024/1644(2).
(7) The Member States that are Contracting Parties,that are present at the Energy Charter Conference or that vote by correspondence, should take a position which does not prevent the adoption or approval of the proposed amendments, understandings and decisions,
(a) not to prevent the adoption by the Energy Charter Conference of the proposed amendment to Article 49 ECT (CC 760 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(b) not to prevent the approval of the understanding with respect to Article 49 ECT on the roles of the Energy Charter Secretariat (CC 762 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(c) not to prevent the approval of a decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 49 ECT with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 814), attached to this Decision; and
(d) not to prevent the adoption by correspondence of the proposed amendment to Article 21 PEEREA and the approval of the associated understanding with respect to Article 21 PEEREA and of the decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 21 PEEREA with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 823), attached to this Decision.
Understanding 16 with respect to Article 49 in the original ECT Understanding 18 with respect to Article 49 in the ECT as amended in 1998
The “Secretariat” in Article 49 shall mean a “Secretariat” defined in Article 35. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the “Depositary” in this Treaty shall mean the “Secretariat” defined in Article 35 in the capacity of the Depositary.
1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the ECT adopted on 3 December 2024 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the ECT on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025.
2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to subparagraph (a) on 2 February 2025.’.
1. Article 21 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: replace “The Government of the Portuguese Republic” with “The Secretariat”.
2. Article 22 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: delete “Italian,”.
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article(s) 194(2) and 207, in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1) The Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’) and its Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects (‘PEEREA’) were concluded by the European Communities by means of Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom (1) and entered into force on 16 April 1998.
(2) Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA designated the Government of the Portuguese Republic as the depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. On 1 February 2024, the Portuguese Republic notified its intention to withdraw from the ECT and PEEREA. In this regard, the Government of the Portuguese Republic will cease performing its function as depositary. The withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic from the ECT and PEEREA will take effect on 2 February 2025.
(3) An amendment to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA is necessary to designate a new depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. The Contracting Parties to the ECT (‘Contracting Parties’) agreed in negotiations to add such an amendment to the modernised text of the ECT, in order to designate the Energy Charter Secretariat (the ‘Secretariat’) as a new depositary. The Contracting Parties have also agreed to amend PEEREA similarly. The Contracting Parties have further agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference a new understanding with respect to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA on the roles of the Secretariat as depositary. Furthermore, given that not all Contracting Parties will apply the modernised ECT provisionally after its adoption, the Contracting Parties agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference two decisions, which will designate the Secretariat as interim depositary from 2 February 2025, pending the entry into force of amendments to the ECT and PEEREA.
(4) Pursuant to Article 34 of the ECT, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to the ECT. Pursuant to Article 12 of PEEREA, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to PEEREA.
(5) The Energy Charter Conference is to adopt the proposed acts at its meeting of 3 December 2024 with respect to the ECT and by correspondence, launched on 6 November 2024 with a deadline on 30 January 2025, with respect to PEEREA. The acts to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference will be binding on the Union.
(6) It is appropriate for the Union not to exercise its vote at the Energy Charter Conference voting on the proposed amendments to the ECT and PEEREA, as well as on the proposed understandings and decisions. It is also appropriate to establish the position to be taken by the Member States that are Contracting Parties, acting jointly, for matters falling within the Union’s competence. That position is without prejudice to the division of competences between the Union and the Member States. That position complements the position laid down in Council Decision (EU) 2024/1644 (2).
(7) The Member States that are Contracting Parties,that are present at the Energy Charter Conference or that vote by correspondence, should take a position which does not prevent the adoption or approval of the proposed amendments, understandings and decisions,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1. In accordance with Article 36(7) of the Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’), the Union shall not exercise its right to vote in the Energy Charter Conference voting on the proposed amendments to and understandings with respect to Article 49 ECT and Article 21 of the ECT Protocol on energy efficiency and related environmental aspects (‘PEEREA’) and on the decisions on the designation of a depositary under Article 49 ECT and Article 21 PEEREA, attached to this Decision.

2. The Member States that are Contracting Parties to the ECT shall, acting jointly, exercise their vote at the Energy Charter Conference on 3 December 2024, where they are present, or by correspondence, as the case may be, so as:
(a) not to prevent the adoption by the Energy Charter Conference of the proposed amendment to Article 49 ECT (CC 760 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(b) not to prevent the approval of the understanding with respect to Article 49 ECT on the roles of the Energy Charter Secretariat (CC 762 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(c) not to prevent the approval of a decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 49 ECT with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 814), attached to this Decision; and
(d) not to prevent the adoption by correspondence of the proposed amendment to Article 21 PEEREA and the approval of the associated understanding with respect to Article 21 PEEREA and of the decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 21 PEEREA with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 823), attached to this Decision.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Amendments

The Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects, as contained in Annex 3 to the Final Act of the European Energy Charter Conference, shall be amended as follows:
1. Article 21 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: replace “The Government of the Portuguese Republic” with “The Secretariat”.

2. Article 22 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: delete “Italian,”.

Understandings

The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopt the following understanding with respect to Article 21:
“The ‘Secretariat’ in Article 21 of this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the ‘Depositary’ in this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty in the capacity of the Depositary of this Protocol.”.

Interim Provisions

1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopted on 30 January 2025 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025.
2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to paragraph (1) on 2 February 2025.’.

1.
Proposed amendment to Article 49 ECT, included in the proposed amendments to the Energy Charter Treaty (document CC 760 REV2), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 3 September 2024
‘Article 49
Depositary
The Government of the Portuguese Republic
Secretariat shall be the Depositary of this Treaty (1).’.

2.
Proposed new understanding with respect to Article 49 on the roles of the Energy Charter Secretariat, included in the proposed changes to Understandings, Declarations and Decision (document CC 762 REV2), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 3 September 2024
‘

Understanding 16 with respect to Article 49 in the original ECT
Understanding 18 with respect to Article 49 in the ECT as amended in 1998
The “Secretariat” in Article 49 shall mean a “Secretariat” defined in Article 35. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the “Depositary” in this Treaty shall mean the “Secretariat” defined in Article 35 in the capacity of the Depositary.
’.

3.
Proposed Decision of the Energy Charter Conference on the Designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as a Depositary under Article 49 of the Energy Charter Treaty (document CC 814), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 3 September 2024
‘
35th Meeting of the Energy Charter Conference
3 December 2024

DESIGNATION OF THE ENERGY CHARTER SECRETARIAT AS A DEPOSITARY UNDER ARTICLE 49 OF THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY
The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)
Taking note of the withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic as a Contracting Party to the ECT effective on 2 February 2025,
Having regard to the notification of the Portuguese Republic of 7 March 2024 that the Government of the Portuguese Republic shall no longer perform the functions of the Depositary under Article 49 of the ECT after its withdrawal takes effect,
Recalling the amendment to Article 49 designating the Energy Charter Secretariat (Secretariat) as the Depositary of the ECT adopted by the 35th Energy Charter Conference [CC 814],
Have agreed as follows: 1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the ECT adopted on 3 December 2024 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the ECT on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025. 2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to subparagraph (a) on 2 February 2025.’.

4.
Proposed amendments to Article 21 PEEREA (document CC 823), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 6 November 2024
‘AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY CHARTER PROTOCOL ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects,
Taking note of the withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic as a Contracting Party to the Energy Charter Treaty and the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects effective on 2 February 2025,
Having regard to the notification of the Portuguese Republic of 7 March 2024 that the Government of the Portuguese Republic shall no longer perform the functions of the Depositary under Article 49 of the Energy Charter Treaty after its withdrawal takes effect,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1
Amendments
The Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects, as contained in Annex 3 to the Final Act of the European Energy Charter Conference, shall be amended as follows: 1. Article 21 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: replace “The Government of the Portuguese Republic” with “The Secretariat”. 2. Article 22 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: delete “Italian,”.
Article 2
Understandings
The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopt the following understanding with respect to Article 21:
“The ‘Secretariat’ in Article 21 of this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the ‘Depositary’ in this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty in the capacity of the Depositary of this Protocol.”.
Article 3
Interim Provisions 1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopted on 30 January 2025 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025. 2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to paragraph (1) on 2 February 2025.’.

(1) Proposed new wording is underlined and the text suggested to be deleted is shown in strikethrough.

Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3083 of 4 December 2024 establishing the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3083 5.12.2024
(1) The right to good administration is enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a general principle of Union law.
(2) Article 298(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that, in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration.
(3) Relations with the public form an essential part of the Commission’s mission to serve the public interest. The Commission is committed to the values of service and the highest standards of professional ethics. The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public (the ‘Code of Good Administrative Behaviour’) implements these values.
(4) The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour helps ensure that Commission staff put the principles of good administration into practice on a daily basis in their relations with the public. It sets out the principles that guide the administrative conduct of Commission staff, such as lawfulness, independence, non-discrimination and equal treatment, proportionality, consistency, impartiality, objectivity and prompt handling of enquiries from the public.
(5) The Commission adopted the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in 2000 as an annex to its Rules of Procedure(1).
(6) The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour should be adopted as a self-standing Commission decision in order to give it greater visibility and to facilitate subsequent updates.
(7) The Rules of Procedure of the Commission(2)now provide, in Articles 46 and 70 respectively, that Commission staff shall act in accordance with the rules laid down in the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and that the Rules of Procedure no longer contain this Code as an annex.
(8) The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour should be updated to reflect changes in Union law and in communications methods,
— the rules on the protection of privacy and personal data;
— the security rules for protecting EU classified and sensitive non-classified information;
— the obligations set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular those which relate to professional secrecy;
— the rules on secrecy in criminal investigations;
— the confidentiality of matters falling within the ambit of the various committees and bodies referred to in Article 9 of, and Annexes II and III to, the Staff Regulations.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 249(1) thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The right to good administration is enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and is recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a general principle of Union law.
(2) Article 298(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that, in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration.
(3) Relations with the public form an essential part of the Commission’s mission to serve the public interest. The Commission is committed to the values of service and the highest standards of professional ethics. The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public (the ‘Code of Good Administrative Behaviour’) implements these values.
(4) The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour helps ensure that Commission staff put the principles of good administration into practice on a daily basis in their relations with the public. It sets out the principles that guide the administrative conduct of Commission staff, such as lawfulness, independence, non-discrimination and equal treatment, proportionality, consistency, impartiality, objectivity and prompt handling of enquiries from the public.
(5) The Commission adopted the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in 2000 as an annex to its Rules of Procedure (1).
(6) The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour should be adopted as a self-standing Commission decision in order to give it greater visibility and to facilitate subsequent updates.
(7) The Rules of Procedure of the Commission (2) now provide, in Articles 46 and 70 respectively, that Commission staff shall act in accordance with the rules laid down in the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and that the Rules of Procedure no longer contain this Code as an annex.
(8) The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour should be updated to reflect changes in Union law and in communications methods,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, as set out in the Annex, is adopted.
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Quality service

The Commission and its staff have a duty to serve the interest of the Union and, in so doing, the public interest.
The public legitimately expects quality service and an administration that is open, accessible and properly run.
Quality service calls for the Commission and its staff to be courteous, objective and impartial.

Purpose

In order to meet its obligations of good administrative behaviour, in particular in its relations with the public, the Commission undertakes to observe the standards of good administrative behaviour set out in this Code and to be guided by them in its daily work.

Scope

This Code shall be binding on all staff covered by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Staff Regulations’) and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (the ‘CEOS’) (1) in their relations with the public. Staff employed under national law, seconded national experts, trainees, service providers and scientific visitors shall also be guided by this Code in their relations with the public.
Relations between the Commission and its staff are to be governed exclusively by the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.
1. General principles of good administration

The Commission respects the following general principles in its relations with the public:

Lawfulness

The Commission acts in accordance with the law and applies the rules and procedures included in Union law.

Non-discrimination and equal treatment

The Commission respects the principle of non-discrimination and, in particular, guarantees equal treatment for members of the public irrespective of nationality, sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation. Thus, a difference in the treatment of similar cases is to be duly justified by the relevant features of the case at hand.

Proportionality

The Commission ensures that the measures taken are proportional to the aim pursued.
In particular, the Commission ensures that the application of this Code never leads to the imposition of administrative or budgetary burdens disproportionate to the expected benefit.

Consistency

The Commission shall be consistent in its administrative behaviour and shall follow its normal practice. Any exception to this principle has to be duly justified.
2. Guidelines for good administrative behaviour

Objectivity and impartiality

Staff shall always act objectively and impartially, in the interest of the Union and for the public good. They shall act independently within the framework of the policy set by the Commission and their conduct shall never be guided by personal or national interests or political pressure.

Information on administrative procedures

Where a member of the public requires information relating to an administrative procedure of the Commission, staff shall ensure that this information is provided within the deadline set for the relevant procedure.
3. Information on the rights of interested parties

Hearing of all parties with a direct interest

Where Union law provides that interested parties are to be heard, staff shall ensure that they are given an opportunity to make their views known.

Duty to state the reasons on which decisions are based

Commission decisions shall clearly state the reasons on which they are based and shall be communicated to the interested parties.
As a general rule, a statement of reasons for decisions shall be given. However, where it may not be possible to communicate in detail the grounds of individual decisions, for example because of the large number of persons concerned by similar decisions, standard replies may be given. Those standard replies shall include the main reasons justifying the decision taken. Furthermore, an interested party who expressly so requests shall be provided with a detailed statement of reasons.

Duty to state the appeal possibilities

Where Union law so provides, decisions notified shall clearly state that an appeal is possible and describe how to lodge it (name, postal address and email address) of the service with which the appeal has to be lodged and the deadline for lodging the appeal).
Where relevant, decisions shall refer to the possibility of starting judicial proceedings in accordance with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and/or of lodging a complaint with the European Ombudsman in accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
4. Dealing with enquiries

The Commission undertakes to answer enquiries from the public in the most appropriate manner and without delay.

Requests for documents

The rules on access to documents are enshrined in specific rules (2), which are to apply fully under this section.

Correspondence

For the purposes of this Code, the term ‘correspondence’ shall mean both letters and electronic mail sent to the Commission.
In accordance with Article 24 and Article 20(2)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission shall reply to correspondence in the original language of the correspondence provided that it was written in one of the languages referred to in Article 55(1) of the Treaty on European Union.
Unless otherwise stated in the specific applicable provisions in the relevant field, a reply to correspondence addressed to the Commission shall be sent within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the correspondence by the service responsible for the matter. The reply shall identify the service responsible and state how it may be contacted (name, postal address and email address).
If a reply cannot be sent within 15 working days, and in all cases where the reply requires additional work, such as consultation between services or translation, the service responsible shall send a holding reply, indicating a date by which the addressee may expect a reply in the light of this additional work, taking into account the relative urgency and complexity of the matter.
If the reply is to be drawn up by a service other than the one to which the initial correspondence is addressed, the person making the enquiry shall be informed of the name, the postal address and the e-mail address of the service to whom the correspondence has been transmitted.
These rules shall not apply to correspondence that can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example because it is repetitive, abusive and/or pointless. In such cases, the Commission reserves the right to discontinue any such exchange of correspondence.

Telephone communication

When answering the telephone, staff shall identify themselves or their service. They shall return telephone calls as promptly as possible.
Staff replying to enquiries shall provide information on subjects for which they have direct responsibility and shall direct the caller to the specific appropriate source in other cases. If necessary, they shall consult their superior before providing the information or refer callers to them.
Where enquiries concern areas for which staff are directly responsible, they shall check whether the information has already been made public before providing it. If this is not the case, the member of staff may consider, where appropriate in consultation with their superior, that it is not in the interest of the Union to disclose the information. In that case, the member of staff shall explain why they are unable to disclose the information and, where appropriate, refer to the obligation to exercise discretion as laid down in Article 17 of the Staff Regulations.
Where appropriate, staff shall request confirmation in writing of enquiries made by telephone.

Requests from the media

The Spokesperson’s Service is responsible for contacts with the media. However, staff may answer requests for information that concern technical subjects falling within their specific areas of responsibility.
5. Protection of personal data and sensitive information

The Commission and its staff are to respect, in particular:

—
the rules on the protection of privacy and personal data;

—
the security rules for protecting EU classified and sensitive non-classified information;

—
the obligations set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular those which relate to professional secrecy;

—
the rules on secrecy in criminal investigations;

—
the confidentiality of matters falling within the ambit of the various committees and bodies referred to in Article 9 of, and Annexes II and III to, the Staff Regulations.

6. Complaints

European Commission

Complaints concerning a possible breach of the principles set out in this Code may be lodged directly with the Secretariat-General (3) of the European Commission, which shall forward them to the relevant service.
The Director-General or Head of Service shall reply to any such complaint in writing, within 2 months. The complainant then has 1 month to request the Secretary-General of the European Commission to review the outcome of the complaint. The Secretary-General shall reply to the request for review within 1 month.

European Ombudsman

Complaints may also be lodged with the European Ombudsman in accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Statute of the European Ombudsman.

(1) Council Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 45, 14.6.1962, p. 1385/62, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1962/31(1)/2024-01-01).

(2) Including 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 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj), and the Detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, annexed to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (OJ L, 2024/3080, 5.12.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/3080/oj).

(3) Postal address: Secretariat-General of the European Commission, Unit SG.C.2 ‘Ethics, Good Administration and Relations with the European Ombudsman’, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
Email address : [email protected]

Online complaint form: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/sg/administrative-conduct/complaints_en/

Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3082 of 4 December 2024 on transparency measures concerning meetings held between Commission staff holding management functions and interest representatives, and repealing Decision 2014/838/EU, Euratom

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3082 5.12.2024
(1) In accordance with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the institutions must, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action and are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 2 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and with Article 11(3) of the TEU, the Commission has to consult widely before proposing legislative acts.
(2) Pursuant to Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union must have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration.
(3) In order to maintain the trust of Union citizens in the legitimacy of the political, legislative and administrative processes of the Union, contacts with interest representatives should be carried out in a transparent manner. To that effect, the Commission is committed to promoting ethical and transparent interest representation by means of the mandatory transparency register(1).
(4) On 4 December 2024 the Commission adopted Decision (EU) 2024/3081(2)setting out transparency measures concerning meetings held between Members of the Commission and their members of Cabinet with interest representatives. Commission staff holding management functions may also have meetings with interest representatives for similar purposes as the meetings referred to in that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to apply similar transparency requirements for such meetings.
(5) In view of the positive experience with the publication of information on meetings held between Directors-General of the Commission with interest representatives on issues relating to decision-making and policy implementation in the Union, the practice of making public information on such meetings should be maintained and extended to all Commission staff holding management functions. While there is no need for further measures with regard to the participation of Directors-General of the Commission or other Commission staff holding management functions in public events, since such information is already in the public domain, all Commission staff holding management functions should make public information on all meetings held by them with interest representatives.
(6) While pursuant to Article 7(1) of Commission Decision C/2018/0700 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission(3), the Members of the Commission and their members of Cabinet already meet only those interest representatives which are registered in the transparency register inasmuch as they fall under the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement, that measure should apply to all Commission staff holding management functions to ensure a consistent approach and high standard of transparency.
(7) Meetings that do not take place in the framework of covered activities, as defined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, should not be covered by this Decision. In particular, meetings with representatives of other Union institutions or bodies, which reflect the ordinary course of interinstitutional relations, should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings with representatives of public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level, should not be covered by this Decision as those authorities pursue the general interest and contribute to the work of the Commission under the principle of sincere cooperation. Meetings with associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, should not be covered by this Decision, on condition that those associations and networks act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities. In order to protect the international relations of the Union, meetings with representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, or intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them, should not be covered by this Decision.
(8) In order to respect the specific character of the dialogue with the social partners, provided for in Article 154 of the TFEU, as well as the specific character of the dialogue with churches and religious associations or communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, meetings taking place in those contexts should not be covered by this Decision.
(9) In view of the specific role of political parties recognised by Article 10(4) of the TEU, meetings with representatives of political parties should also not be covered by this Decision.
(10) In line with the Interinstitutional Agreement, spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union should not be covered by this Decision. In addition, this Decision should not cover contacts with natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others.
(11) Meetings that take place in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union, or submissions based on a contractual relationship with any of the signatory institutions or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds, or submissions in response to direct and specific requests from any of the Union institutions, their representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise, should not be covered by this Decision.
(12) In order to further enhance transparency concerning interest representation and allow citizens to be aware of the content of the exchanges held between the Commission and interest representatives, Commission staff holding management functions should make public minutes of all meetings held by them with interest representatives.
(13) This Decision is without prejudice to the exercise of the right of access to documents of the institutions pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council(4), and the exercise of the rights of the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council(5). It is also without prejudice to more enhanced transparency requirements or commitments resulting from Union legislation or international agreements concluded by the Union,
(a) ‘Commission staff holding management functions’ means a Commission staff member holding a post corresponding to the type of post of Secretary-General, Director-General, Deputy Secretary-General or Deputy Director-General, Director or equivalent, Head of Unit or equivalent in the sense of Commission Decision C(2013)8979 of 16 December 2013 on types of post and post titles;
(b) ‘interest representative’ means any natural or legal person, or formal or informal group, association or network, that engages in activities carried out with the objective of influencing the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation, or the decision-making processes of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;
(c) ‘meeting’ means an encounter organised at the initiative of an interest representative or Commission staff holding management functions to discuss an issue related to the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation in the Union, without prejudice to Article 3.
(a) spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union;
(b) meetings held with:(i)social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;(ii)natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;(iii)public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;(iv)associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;(v)intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;(vi)public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;(vii)political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;(viii)churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations; (i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU; (ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others; (iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level; (iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities; (v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them; (vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement; (vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties; (viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;
(ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;
(iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;
(iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;
(v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;
(vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;
(vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;
(viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;
(ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;
(iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;
(iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;
(v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;
(vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;
(vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;
(viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(c) meetings held in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice, where:(i)it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;(ii)the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;(iii)it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights; (i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body; (ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework; (iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;
(ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;
(iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;
(ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;
(iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(d) meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions:(i)as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;(ii)based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;(iii)in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise. (i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union; (ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds; (iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.
(i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;
(ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;
(iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.
(i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;
(ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;
(iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.
(a) the date of the meeting;
(b) the location of the meeting;
(c) the name and function of the Commission staff holding management functions;
(d) the name(s) of the interest representative(s);
(e) the subject matter of the meeting.
(a) the information set out in Article 5(2);
(b) main points raised and positions expressed at the meeting;
(c) conclusions from the meeting, where applicable.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 249 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the institutions must, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action and are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 2 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and with Article 11(3) of the TEU, the Commission has to consult widely before proposing legislative acts.
(2) Pursuant to Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union must have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration.
(3) In order to maintain the trust of Union citizens in the legitimacy of the political, legislative and administrative processes of the Union, contacts with interest representatives should be carried out in a transparent manner. To that effect, the Commission is committed to promoting ethical and transparent interest representation by means of the mandatory transparency register (1).
(4) On 4 December 2024 the Commission adopted Decision (EU) 2024/3081 (2) setting out transparency measures concerning meetings held between Members of the Commission and their members of Cabinet with interest representatives. Commission staff holding management functions may also have meetings with interest representatives for similar purposes as the meetings referred to in that Decision. It is therefore appropriate to apply similar transparency requirements for such meetings.
(5) In view of the positive experience with the publication of information on meetings held between Directors-General of the Commission with interest representatives on issues relating to decision-making and policy implementation in the Union, the practice of making public information on such meetings should be maintained and extended to all Commission staff holding management functions. While there is no need for further measures with regard to the participation of Directors-General of the Commission or other Commission staff holding management functions in public events, since such information is already in the public domain, all Commission staff holding management functions should make public information on all meetings held by them with interest representatives.
(6) While pursuant to Article 7(1) of Commission Decision C/2018/0700 on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission (3), the Members of the Commission and their members of Cabinet already meet only those interest representatives which are registered in the transparency register inasmuch as they fall under the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement, that measure should apply to all Commission staff holding management functions to ensure a consistent approach and high standard of transparency.
(7) Meetings that do not take place in the framework of covered activities, as defined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, should not be covered by this Decision. In particular, meetings with representatives of other Union institutions or bodies, which reflect the ordinary course of interinstitutional relations, should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings with representatives of public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level, should not be covered by this Decision as those authorities pursue the general interest and contribute to the work of the Commission under the principle of sincere cooperation. Meetings with associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, should not be covered by this Decision, on condition that those associations and networks act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities. In order to protect the international relations of the Union, meetings with representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, or intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them, should not be covered by this Decision.
(8) In order to respect the specific character of the dialogue with the social partners, provided for in Article 154 of the TFEU, as well as the specific character of the dialogue with churches and religious associations or communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, meetings taking place in those contexts should not be covered by this Decision.
(9) In view of the specific role of political parties recognised by Article 10(4) of the TEU, meetings with representatives of political parties should also not be covered by this Decision.
(10) In line with the Interinstitutional Agreement, spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union should not be covered by this Decision. In addition, this Decision should not cover contacts with natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others.
(11) Meetings that take place in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union, or submissions based on a contractual relationship with any of the signatory institutions or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds, or submissions in response to direct and specific requests from any of the Union institutions, their representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise, should not be covered by this Decision.
(12) In order to further enhance transparency concerning interest representation and allow citizens to be aware of the content of the exchanges held between the Commission and interest representatives, Commission staff holding management functions should make public minutes of all meetings held by them with interest representatives.
(13) This Decision is without prejudice to the exercise of the right of access to documents of the institutions pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), and the exercise of the rights of the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). It is also without prejudice to more enhanced transparency requirements or commitments resulting from Union legislation or international agreements concluded by the Union,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Subject matter

This Decision establishes measures concerning the transparency of meetings that Commission staff holding management functions hold with interest representatives.

Definitions

For the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions apply:

(a) ‘Commission staff holding management functions’ means a Commission staff member holding a post corresponding to the type of post of Secretary-General, Director-General, Deputy Secretary-General or Deputy Director-General, Director or equivalent, Head of Unit or equivalent in the sense of Commission Decision C(2013)8979 of 16 December 2013 on types of post and post titles;
(b) ‘interest representative’ means any natural or legal person, or formal or informal group, association or network, that engages in activities carried out with the objective of influencing the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation, or the decision-making processes of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;
(c) ‘meeting’ means an encounter organised at the initiative of an interest representative or Commission staff holding management functions to discuss an issue related to the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation in the Union, without prejudice to Article 3.

Exemptions

This Decision shall not cover the following meetings:

(a) spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union;
(b) meetings held with:
(i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;
(ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;
(iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;
(iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;
(v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;
(vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;
(vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;
(viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(c) meetings held in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice, where:
(i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;
(ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;
(iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(d) meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions:
(i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;
(ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;
(iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.

Conditionality of meetings

Commission staff holding management functions shall meet only those interest representatives, which are registered in the transparency register in as much as they fall under the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement.

Information on meetings

1. Commission staff holding management functions shall make public information on all meetings that they hold with interest representatives, in accordance with the provisions of this Decision.

2. The information to be made public shall consist of:
(a) the date of the meeting;
(b) the location of the meeting;
(c) the name and function of the Commission staff holding management functions;
(d) the name(s) of the interest representative(s);
(e) the subject matter of the meeting.

Minutes of meetings

1. Minutes shall be taken of all meetings that Commission staff holding management functions hold with interest representatives.

2. Commission staff holding management functions shall make public the minutes of meetings, in accordance with the provisions of this Decision.

3. The minutes of a meeting shall be drawn up as a single document including:
(a) the information set out in Article 5(2);
(b) main points raised and positions expressed at the meeting;
(c) conclusions from the meeting, where applicable.

Publication

Without prejudice to Article 8, the information set out in Article 5(2) and a document drawn up in accordance with Article 6(3) shall be published in a standardised format on the official website of the respective Commission department within a period of 2 weeks following the meeting.

Personal data of individuals attending meetings

The personal data of individuals (acting on behalf of interest representatives) or Commission staff (other than Commission staff holding management functions) attending meetings shall not be made public.

Final provisions

1. This Decision shall replace Commission Decision 2014/838/EU, Euratom, the effects of which shall cease to apply from the date of entry into force of this Decision.

2. This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

3. It shall apply from 1 January 2025.

Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3081 of 4 December 2024 on transparency measures concerning meetings held between Members of the Commission and interest representatives, and repealing Decision 2014/839/EU, Euratom

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3081 5.12.2024
(1) In accordance with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the institutions must, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action and are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 2 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and with Article 11(3) of the TEU, the Commission has to consult widely before proposing legislative acts.
(2) For these purposes, Members of the Commission and members of their Cabinets regularly meet with interest representatives to enable them to present their views on decisions that may affect them and enhance the quality of decision-making by providing channels for external views and expertise.
(3) In order to maintain the trust of Union citizens in the legitimacy of the political, legislative and administrative processes of the Union, contacts with interest representatives should be carried out in a transparent manner. To that effect, the Commission is committed to promoting ethical and transparent interest representation by means of the mandatory transparency register(1).
(4) Pursuant to Article 7(1) and (2) of Commission Decision C/2018/0700(2)on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, the Members of the Commission and their members of Cabinet shall meet only those interest representatives that are registered in the transparency register inasmuch as they fall under the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement and shall make public information on such meetings.
(5) In view of the positive experience with the publication of information on meetings held by the Members of the Commission or by members of their Cabinet with interest representatives on issues relating to decision-making and policy implementation in the Union, the practice of making public information on such meetings should be maintained. While there is no need for further measures with regard to the participation of Members of the Commission and members of their Cabinets in public events, since such information is already in the public domain, the Members of the Commission should continue to make public information on all meetings held by them or by members of their Cabinets with interest representatives.
(6) Meetings that do not take place in the framework of covered activities, as defined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, should not be covered by this Decision. In particular, meetings with representatives of other Union institutions or bodies, which reflect the ordinary course of interinstitutional relations, should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings with representatives of public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level, should not be covered by this Decision as those authorities pursue the general interest and contribute to the work of the Commission under the principle of sincere cooperation. Meetings with associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level should not be covered by this Decision, on condition that those associations and networks act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities. In order to protect the international relations of the Union, meetings with representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, or intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them, should not be covered by this Decision.
(7) In order to respect the specific character of the dialogue with the social partners, provided for in Article 154 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the specific character of the dialogue with churches and religious associations or communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, meetings taking place in those contexts should not be covered by this Decision.
(8) In view of the specific role of political parties recognised by Article 10(4) of the TEU, meetings with representatives of political parties should also not be covered by this Decision.
(9) In line with the Interinstitutional Agreement, spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union should not be covered by this Decision. In addition, this Decision should not cover contacts with natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others.
(10) Meetings that take place in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union, or submissions based on a contractual relationship with any of the signatory institutions or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds, or submissions in response to direct and specific requests from any of the Union institutions, their representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise, should not be covered by this Decision.
(11) In order to further enhance transparency concerning interest representation and allow citizens to be aware of the content of the exchanges held between the Commission and interest representatives, the Members of the Commission should make public minutes of all meetings held by them or by members of their Cabinet with interest representatives.
(12) This Decision is without prejudice to the exercise of the right of access to documents of the institutions pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council(3), and the exercise of the rights of the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council(4). It is also without prejudice to more enhanced transparency requirements or commitments resulting from Union legislation or international agreements concluded by the Union,
(a) ‘interest representative’ means any natural or legal person, or formal or informal group, association or network, that engages in activities carried out with the objective of influencing the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation, or the decision-making processes of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;
(b) ‘meeting’ means an encounter organised at the initiative of an interest representative or a Member of the Commission and/or a member of his/her Cabinet to discuss an issue related to the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation in the Union, without prejudice to Article 3.
(a) spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union;
(b) meetings held with:(i)social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;(ii)natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;(iii)public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;(iv)associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;(v)intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;(vi)public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;(vii)political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;(viii)churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations; (i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU; (ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others; (iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level; (iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities; (v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them; (vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement; (vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties; (viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;
(ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;
(iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;
(iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;
(v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;
(vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;
(vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;
(viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;
(ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;
(iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;
(iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;
(v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;
(vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;
(vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;
(viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(c) meetings held in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice, where:(i)it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;(ii)the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;(iii)it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights; (i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body; (ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework; (iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;
(ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;
(iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;
(ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;
(iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(d) meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions:(i)as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;(ii)based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;(iii)in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise. (i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union; (ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds; (iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.
(i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;
(ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;
(iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.
(i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;
(ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;
(iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.
(a) the date of the meeting;
(b) the location of the meeting;
(c) the name of the Member of the Commission and/or of the member(s) of their Cabinet;
(d) the name(s) of the interest representative(s);
(e) the subject matter of the meeting.
(a) the information set out in Article 4(2);
(b) main points raised and positions expressed at the meeting;
(c) conclusions from the meeting, where applicable.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 249 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 11(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the institutions must, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action and are required to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 2 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and with Article 11(3) of the TEU, the Commission has to consult widely before proposing legislative acts.
(2) For these purposes, Members of the Commission and members of their Cabinets regularly meet with interest representatives to enable them to present their views on decisions that may affect them and enhance the quality of decision-making by providing channels for external views and expertise.
(3) In order to maintain the trust of Union citizens in the legitimacy of the political, legislative and administrative processes of the Union, contacts with interest representatives should be carried out in a transparent manner. To that effect, the Commission is committed to promoting ethical and transparent interest representation by means of the mandatory transparency register (1).
(4) Pursuant to Article 7(1) and (2) of Commission Decision C/2018/0700 (2) on a Code of Conduct for the Members of the European Commission, the Members of the Commission and their members of Cabinet shall meet only those interest representatives that are registered in the transparency register inasmuch as they fall under the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement and shall make public information on such meetings.
(5) In view of the positive experience with the publication of information on meetings held by the Members of the Commission or by members of their Cabinet with interest representatives on issues relating to decision-making and policy implementation in the Union, the practice of making public information on such meetings should be maintained. While there is no need for further measures with regard to the participation of Members of the Commission and members of their Cabinets in public events, since such information is already in the public domain, the Members of the Commission should continue to make public information on all meetings held by them or by members of their Cabinets with interest representatives.
(6) Meetings that do not take place in the framework of covered activities, as defined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement, should not be covered by this Decision. In particular, meetings with representatives of other Union institutions or bodies, which reflect the ordinary course of interinstitutional relations, should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings with representatives of public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level, should not be covered by this Decision as those authorities pursue the general interest and contribute to the work of the Commission under the principle of sincere cooperation. Meetings with associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level should not be covered by this Decision, on condition that those associations and networks act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities. In order to protect the international relations of the Union, meetings with representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, or intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them, should not be covered by this Decision.
(7) In order to respect the specific character of the dialogue with the social partners, provided for in Article 154 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the specific character of the dialogue with churches and religious associations or communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, meetings taking place in those contexts should not be covered by this Decision.
(8) In view of the specific role of political parties recognised by Article 10(4) of the TEU, meetings with representatives of political parties should also not be covered by this Decision.
(9) In line with the Interinstitutional Agreement, spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union should not be covered by this Decision. In addition, this Decision should not cover contacts with natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others.
(10) Meetings that take place in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice should not be covered by this Decision. Meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union, or submissions based on a contractual relationship with any of the signatory institutions or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds, or submissions in response to direct and specific requests from any of the Union institutions, their representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise, should not be covered by this Decision.
(11) In order to further enhance transparency concerning interest representation and allow citizens to be aware of the content of the exchanges held between the Commission and interest representatives, the Members of the Commission should make public minutes of all meetings held by them or by members of their Cabinet with interest representatives.
(12) This Decision is without prejudice to the exercise of the right of access to documents of the institutions pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), and the exercise of the rights of the data subject pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). It is also without prejudice to more enhanced transparency requirements or commitments resulting from Union legislation or international agreements concluded by the Union,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Subject matter

This Decision establishes measures concerning the transparency of meetings that Members of the Commission and/or members of their Cabinet hold with interest representatives.

Definitions

For the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions apply:

(a) ‘interest representative’ means any natural or legal person, or formal or informal group, association or network, that engages in activities carried out with the objective of influencing the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation, or the decision-making processes of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;
(b) ‘meeting’ means an encounter organised at the initiative of an interest representative or a Member of the Commission and/or a member of his/her Cabinet to discuss an issue related to the formulation or implementation of policy or legislation in the Union, without prejudice to Article 3.

Exemptions

This Decision shall not cover the following meetings:

(a) spontaneous meetings, meetings of a purely private or social character and meetings taking place in the context of an administrative procedure established by the TEU or TFEU or legal acts of the Union;
(b) meetings held with:
(i) social partners acting as participants in social dialogue pursuant to Article 154 of the TFEU;
(ii) natural persons acting in a strictly personal capacity and not in association with others;
(iii) public authorities of Member States, including their permanent representations and embassies, at national and subnational level;
(iv) associations and networks of public authorities at Union, national or subnational level, on condition that they act exclusively on behalf of the relevant public authorities;
(v) intergovernmental organisations, including agencies and bodies emanating from them;
(vi) public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, except where such authorities are represented by legal entities, offices or networks without diplomatic status or are represented by an intermediary, as defined in point (e) of Article 2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement;
(vii) political parties, with the exception of any organisations created by or affiliated with political parties;
(viii) churches and religious associations or communities as well as philosophical and non-confessional organisations referred to in Article 17 of the TFEU, with the exception of offices, legal entities, or networks created to represent churches, religious communities or philosophical and non-confessional organisations in their relations with the Union institutions, as well as their associations;
(c) meetings held in the framework of the provision of legal and other professional advice, where:
(i) it consists of representing clients in the context of a conciliation or mediation procedure aimed at preventing a dispute from being brought before a judicial or administrative body;
(ii) the advice is given to clients to help them ensure that their activities comply with the existing legal framework;
(iii) it consists of representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial, and the right of defence in administrative proceedings, and includes activities carried out by lawyers or by any other professionals involved in representing clients and safeguarding their fundamental or procedural rights;
(d) meetings organised for the purposes of making submissions:
(i) as a party or a third party in the framework of a legal or administrative procedure established by Union law or by international law applicable to the Union;
(ii) based on a contractual relationship with the Commission or based on a grant agreement financed by Union funds;
(iii) in response to direct and specific requests from the Commission, its representatives or staff, for factual information, data or expertise.

Information on meetings

1. Members of the Commission shall make public information on all meetings that they and/or members of their Cabinet hold with interest representatives, in accordance with the provisions of this Decision.

2. The information to be made public shall consist of:
(a) the date of the meeting;
(b) the location of the meeting;
(c) the name of the Member of the Commission and/or of the member(s) of their Cabinet;
(d) the name(s) of the interest representative(s);
(e) the subject matter of the meeting.

Minutes of meetings

1. Minutes shall be taken of all meetings that Members of the Commission and/or members of their Cabinet hold with interest representatives.

2. Members of the Commission shall make public the minutes of meetings, in accordance with the provisions of this Decision.

3. The minutes of a meeting shall be drawn up as a single document including:
(a) the information set out in Article 4(2);
(b) main points raised and positions expressed at the meeting;
(c) conclusions from the meeting, where applicable.

Publication

Without prejudice to Article 7, the information set out in Article 4(2) and a document drawn up in accordance with Article 5(3) shall be published in a standardised format on the official websites of the Members of the Commission within a period of 2 weeks following the meeting.

Personal data of individuals attending meetings

The personal data of individuals (acting on behalf of interest representatives) or Commission staff (other than members of the Cabinets and Commission staff holding management functions) attending meetings shall not be made public.

Final provisions

1. This Decision shall replace Commission Decision 2014/839/EU, Euratom (5), the effects of which shall cease to apply from the date of entry into force of this Decision.

2. This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

3. It shall apply from 1 January 2025.

Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3080 of 4 December 2024 establishing the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and amending Decision C(2000) 3614

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3080 5.12.2024
(1) The Decision of 29 November 2000 establishing the Rules of Procedure(1)of the Commission has been amended several times. A main revision took place in 2010(2)by which the Commission adopted a Decision to which all the Articles of the Rules of Procedure were annexed. The last limited amendment dates back to 2020(3). It is therefore necessary in the interests of clarity to replace the provisions in the Articles of the Decision of 2000 and its successive amendments and certain annexes.
(2) In order to improve their accessibility and readability, the Articles of the Rules of Procedure C(2000) 3614 should be merged with the Rules giving effect(4)thereto into a single document.
(3) Several Articles of the Rules of Procedure C(2000) 3614 require substantial revision in order to take into account the evolution of the way in which the Commission functions.
(4) The principle of collegiality governs the functioning of the Commission. It ensues from Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union and is based on the equal participation of the Members of the Commission in the adoption of decisions. The principle of collegiality means, in particular, that decisions should be the subject of collective discussion and that all Members of the College should bear collective political responsibility for all adopted decisions.
(5) The functioning of the Commission and its services is also based on the principle of good governance, which entails, in particular, a clear definition of roles and responsibilities, as well as the traceability of decisions taken by the Commission.
(6) In accordance with Article 15(3), third subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Rules of Procedure should contain, in an Annex, provisions concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council(5).
(7) In order to ensure readability and agility, these Rules of Procedure no longer contain, as annexes, (i) the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, (ii) the Commission provisions setting up the ARGUS General Rapid Alert System and (iii) the detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters to Community institutions and bodies.
(8) Pending the replacement of those annexes by corresponding autonomous decisions, they should temporarily remain applicable to avoid any legal vacuum. Therefore, Decision C(2000) 3614 should be amended by deleting its other provisions except those remaining annexes,
(a) by oral procedure, at the meetings of the Commission, in accordance with section 1 of this Chapter;
(b) by written procedure, in accordance with section 2 of this Chapter;
(c) by empowerment procedure, in accordance with section 3 of this Chapter;
(d) by delegation procedure, in accordance with section 4 of this Chapter,
(a) the relevant documents are not made available to the Members of the Commission within the time limits set out in Article 11(3), unless the President decides otherwise;
(b) one (or more) of the language versions required by Article 41(1), point (b) is (are) missing, unless the President decides to ask the Commission for approval ‘in principle’, accompanied by an ad hoc empowerment for the purpose of adopting the draft act once the language version(s) is (are) available.
(a) the title of the draft act and a brief description of its objective;
(b) the reasons for presenting it and for its timing;
(c) its link with the political guidelines laid down by the President and the priorities set by the Commission and with the Commission’s work programme and its communication strategy;
(d) the state of preparation of the file, including as regards better regulation requirements and the interservice consultation;
(e) the explicit agreement of the Member of the Commission responsible for the budget if the proposal has significant budgetary implications.
(a) discussion papers requested by the President to structure orientation debates;
(b) information notes from Members of the Commission who inform succinctly the Commission of matters under their responsibility, without asking it to adopt a position, and which commit only their authors and the inclusion of which on the agenda has been specifically authorised by the President.
(a) a vote on a draft act may concern, at the President’s discretion: (i) the original draft act, or (ii) an amended draft act submitted either by the Member(s) of the Commission responsible or by the President;
(b) before proceeding to a vote, the President shall establish that the necessary quorum exists, as laid down in Article 12(1);
(c) each Member of the Commission shall have one vote, which may not be delegated;
(d) the draft act shall be adopted if the number of votes in favour is equal to or more than a majority of its Members;
(e) the outcome of the vote, declared by the President, and all the information relating to it, shall be recorded in the minutes of the Commission meeting, in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 16(3); the same shall apply to any statements (such as explanations of vote) which Members of the Commission ask to be recorded;
(f) in certain exceptional circumstances the President may decide to hold a secret ballot.
(a) at the request of the Member of the Commission responsible, or
(b) on the initiative of the Secretary-General, in particular if the draft act does not meet all the required conditions of substance or form.
(a) the Member(s) of the Commission who requested the suspension send(s) the Secretary-General a request for the suspension to be lifted;
(b) the conditions of substance and form have been met.
(a) at the request of the Member(s) of the Commission responsible;
(b) on the initiative of the Secretary-General when justified by the conditions of substance or form;
(c) when, at the request of a Member of the Commission, the President accepts that the draft act be placed on the agenda for a Commission meeting with a view to its adoption by oral procedure, in accordance with Article 17(3).
(a) the Member(s) of the Commission to whom the general empowerment is granted;
(b) the precise subject-matter and scope of the general empowerment and the conditions for exercising it;
(c) a clear justification as to why the measures to be taken by the empowered Member(s) of the Commission can be regarded as management or administrative acts;
(d) the rules for exercising the general empowerment, in particular as regards interservice consultation.
(a) the Director-General or Head of Service to whom the powers are directly delegated;
(b) the precise subject-matter and scope of the direct delegation and the conditions for exercising it;
(c) a clear justification as to why the measures to be taken by the Director-General or Head of Service to whom the powers are delegated can be regarded as management or administrative acts;
(d) the rules for exercising the direct delegation, in particular as regards interservice consultation.
(a) the language(s) stipulated by the President, taking account of the minimum requirements of the Members of the Commission;
(b) the language(s) required for publication of the act in theOfficial Journal of the European Unionor for its notification to the addressee(s) so that it can enter into force or take effect.
(a) for those that are adopted by the oral procedure:(i)by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the summary note drawn up during the Commission meeting at which they were adopted and which lists those acts;(ii)when the President makes use of telecommunication systems under the conditions laid down in Article 12(2), and when circumstances prevent the signing of the summary note, the express written agreement of the Secretary-General may exceptionally replace its signature and shall then be attached to that note; (i) by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the summary note drawn up during the Commission meeting at which they were adopted and which lists those acts; (ii) when the President makes use of telecommunication systems under the conditions laid down in Article 12(2), and when circumstances prevent the signing of the summary note, the express written agreement of the Secretary-General may exceptionally replace its signature and shall then be attached to that note;
(i) by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the summary note drawn up during the Commission meeting at which they were adopted and which lists those acts;
(ii) when the President makes use of telecommunication systems under the conditions laid down in Article 12(2), and when circumstances prevent the signing of the summary note, the express written agreement of the Secretary-General may exceptionally replace its signature and shall then be attached to that note;
(i) by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the summary note drawn up during the Commission meeting at which they were adopted and which lists those acts;
(ii) when the President makes use of telecommunication systems under the conditions laid down in Article 12(2), and when circumstances prevent the signing of the summary note, the express written agreement of the Secretary-General may exceptionally replace its signature and shall then be attached to that note;
(b) for those that are adopted by the written procedure, by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the day note referred to in Article 42 in which they are recorded;
(c) for those that are adopted by empowerment procedure, by the handwritten or electronic signature of the empowered Member of the Commission on the adoption sheet and the record thereof; these acts shall be recorded in the corresponding day note referred to in Article 42;
(d) for those that are adopted by delegation procedure (including by subdelegation), by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Director-General, Deputy Director- General, Director or Head of Unit to whom powers have been delegated or subdelegated on the adoption sheet and the record thereof; these acts shall be recorded in the corresponding day note referred to in Article 42.
(a) the functions of the Secretary-General, the Director-General or Head of Service shall be exercised by the official designated by the Commission;
(b) the functions of any other hierarchical superior shall be exercised by the official designated by the Director-General or Head of Service.
(a) when the hierarchical position in question is provided by a deputy, by that deputy;
(b) when the hierarchical position in question has several deputies, by the deputy present with the highest grade and, in the event of equal grade, the deputy with the greatest seniority in the grade and, in the event of equal seniority, the one who is the eldest;
(c) when there is no post of deputy, when it is not occupied or when the deputy is prevented from exercising their duties, by the subordinate official present in the highest function group with the highest grade and, in the event of equal grade, the subordinate official with the greatest seniority in the grade and, in the event of equal seniority, the one who is eldest.
(a) are politically sensitive and/or important;
(b) feature in the Commission’s annual work programme, including draft acts mentioned in the annexes thereto;
(c) involve institutional aspects;
(d) are subject to an evaluation, fitness check, public consultation or impact assessment.
(1) The Commission is to take its decisions as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen, and to ensure that its proceedings are transparent. This enables citizens to participate and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy and is accountable to the citizens, in the line with the democratic principles of the Union.
(2) In accordance with Article 15(3), third subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(1), each institution of the Union is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents.
(3) The Commission has put in place a digital system for handling applications for access to documents, the Electronic Access to European Commission Documents (‘EASE’), designed to streamline the management of access to documents applications, emphasising the overarching goal of making documents as widely as possible accessible to the public.
(1) ‘applicant’ means any citizens of the Union and natural or legal persons residing or having their registered office in a Member State submitting an application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
(2) ‘document’ refers to the definition of ‘document’ as provided in Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
(3) ‘document drawn up by the Commission’ means a document that has been approved as ready for transmission by the person who is empowered to take responsibility for its content in accordance with the rules and regulations applying to the underlying business process. This person does not have to be the person charged with the practical task of drafting or typing but is instead the person or administrative entity responsible for the content in accordance with the procedural requirements and internal rules of the European Commission for the business process concerned;
(4) ‘document received by the Commission’ means a document that has been intentionally delivered to the European Commission by the (external) sender;
(5) ‘document held by the Commission’ means:(a)any document registered pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Decision 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives(2)(hereafter ‘Commission Decision 2021/2121’); and(b)any other document created in an information technology application controlled and owned by the Commission and stored on a corporate device or on a corporate cloud service, except for documents stored in personal folders for purely personal use outside professional activity; (a) any document registered pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Decision 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives(2)(hereafter ‘Commission Decision 2021/2121’); and (b) any other document created in an information technology application controlled and owned by the Commission and stored on a corporate device or on a corporate cloud service, except for documents stored in personal folders for purely personal use outside professional activity;
(a) any document registered pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Decision 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives(2)(hereafter ‘Commission Decision 2021/2121’); and
(b) any other document created in an information technology application controlled and owned by the Commission and stored on a corporate device or on a corporate cloud service, except for documents stored in personal folders for purely personal use outside professional activity;
(a) any document registered pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Decision 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives(2)(hereafter ‘Commission Decision 2021/2121’); and
(b) any other document created in an information technology application controlled and owned by the Commission and stored on a corporate device or on a corporate cloud service, except for documents stored in personal folders for purely personal use outside professional activity;
(6) ‘business process’ means a pre-defined workflow with clearly defined steps deriving from the procedural requirements or internal rules, and descriptions of the outcome from each step.
(a) agendas for Commission meetings, and tentative agendas for forthcoming meetings;
(b) approved ordinary minutes of Commission meetings;
(c) State of the Union addresses; Commission work programmes, Strategic Foresight reports, Strategic Plans, Management Plans, Annual Burden Survey, the Opinions on the Fit for Future Platform and Annual Activity reports;
(d) European Semester Country-specific recommendations, guidance documents to Member States and Scoreboard related to the Recovery and Resilience Facility;
(e) decisions related to the European Citizens Initiative;
(f) reasoned opinions of the national Parliaments and replies of the Commission on the compliance of a draft legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union;
(g) the aggregated mission expenses of Members of the Commission;
(h) minutes of meetings held between Members of the Commission, their members of Cabinet, Commission managers with interest representatives.
(a) documents being part of pre-infringement and on-going infringement proceedings;
(b) documents being part of on-going court proceedings;
(c) opinions of the Legal Service;
(d) documents being part of State aid cases;
(e) documents being part of competition cases (including merger control procedures and cartel investigations, as well as documents sent to the Commission by national competition authorities), trade defence cases, foreign subsidy cases, foreign direct investment cases, financial market supervision and resolution cases, procedures under the Digital Markets Act(3)and Digital Services Act(4)and comparable administrative procedures;
(f) documents being part of on-going administrative authorisation proceedings;
(g) documents being part of the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) investigations;
(h) bids and grant applications submitted by tenderers or grant applicants in public procurement procedures;
(i) competitions for the recruitment of staff;
(j) documents being part of investigations of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission; and
(k) documents being part of the personal file of staff members.
(a) content that, if not kept, would have no negative administrative or legal effect for the European Commission;
(b) content circulated as part of an informal, preliminary exchange of views between European Commission staff;
(c) exchanges on short-lived matters (such as exchanges regarding practical meeting arrangements);
(d) information on one’s personal situation, unless it documents or implements the procedures established by the Staff Regulations;
(e) informal, preliminary exchanges of views between European Commission staff with a view to determining the position of the administrative entity responsible for the document’s content;
(f) iterations of a preliminary document (e.g. a draft legislative proposal or policy communication or a draft impact assessment); and
(g) early versions of documents being prepared in collaborative spaces, i.e. versions that do not reflect the outcome or document of the collaborative work on the platform.
(a) a public portal enabling citizens to request Commission document(s) (the ‘EASE Portal’); and
(b) an internal IT system for Commission staff to handle applications.
(a) the document requested has already been disclosed either by its author or under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 or similar provisions;
(b) it is clear that the disclosure, or partial disclosure, of its contents would not affect one of the interests referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
(a) refuse to provide access to a document legally released under that Regulation to other applicants; and/or
(b) grant a narrower access to a document previously disclosed under that Regulation.
(a) public figures acting in their public capacity, such as Head of State, President, Minister, senior State officials, Head of regional administration, Ambassador, Member of Parliament, Permanent Representative, Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General or equivalent and above of other Union institutions and bodies, or international inter-governmental organisations, as well as Principal Church officials;
(b) Presidents, Directors General, Chief Executive Officers, Chief Operating Officers or equivalent legal representative of legal persons such as companies, consortiums, non-governmental organisations, including think tanks, associations.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 17 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 249 thereof,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Whereas:
(1) The Decision of 29 November 2000 establishing the Rules of Procedure (1) of the Commission has been amended several times. A main revision took place in 2010 (2) by which the Commission adopted a Decision to which all the Articles of the Rules of Procedure were annexed. The last limited amendment dates back to 2020 (3). It is therefore necessary in the interests of clarity to replace the provisions in the Articles of the Decision of 2000 and its successive amendments and certain annexes.
(2) In order to improve their accessibility and readability, the Articles of the Rules of Procedure C(2000) 3614 should be merged with the Rules giving effect (4) thereto into a single document.
(3) Several Articles of the Rules of Procedure C(2000) 3614 require substantial revision in order to take into account the evolution of the way in which the Commission functions.
(4) The principle of collegiality governs the functioning of the Commission. It ensues from Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union and is based on the equal participation of the Members of the Commission in the adoption of decisions. The principle of collegiality means, in particular, that decisions should be the subject of collective discussion and that all Members of the College should bear collective political responsibility for all adopted decisions.
(5) The functioning of the Commission and its services is also based on the principle of good governance, which entails, in particular, a clear definition of roles and responsibilities, as well as the traceability of decisions taken by the Commission.
(6) In accordance with Article 15(3), third subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Rules of Procedure should contain, in an Annex, provisions concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).
(7) In order to ensure readability and agility, these Rules of Procedure no longer contain, as annexes, (i) the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, (ii) the Commission provisions setting up the ARGUS General Rapid Alert System and (iii) the detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters to Community institutions and bodies.
(8) Pending the replacement of those annexes by corresponding autonomous decisions, they should temporarily remain applicable to avoid any legal vacuum. Therefore, Decision C(2000) 3614 should be amended by deleting its other provisions except those remaining annexes,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Subject-matter

This Decision lays down the rules governing the functioning of the European Commission.

Collegiality

1. The Commission shall act as a College, pursuant to these Rules of Procedure. The College is composed of the President and the other Members of the Commission.

2. The Members of the Commission shall refrain from any behaviour likely to jeopardise, to any extent, the principle of collegiality.

3. All Members of the Commission shall participate on an equal footing in the decision-making process and bear collective responsibility for the decisions taken.

4. Each Member of the Commission shall respect, promote and support the positions adopted by the Commission, in particular throughout the different stages of the legislative procedure.

5. Any position diverging from the position originally adopted by the Commission shall be collegially approved before being presented by representatives of the Commission to the other institutions or bodies of the European Union as well as to Member States, third countries, international or regional organisations and other third parties.

President

1. The President shall lay down the political guidelines within which the Commission is to work. The President shall steer the work of the Commission and represent it.

2. The President shall decide on the internal organisation of the Commission, ensuring that it acts consistently, efficiently and as a collegiate body (6).

3. The President shall structure and allocate responsibilities among the Members of the Commission without prejudice to Article 18(4) of the Treaty on European Union. The President may reshuffle the allocation of those responsibilities during the Commission’s term of office (7).
At the beginning of the term of office, the President shall send the Members of the Commission mission letters setting out their duties and the conditions for carrying them out in the fields of activity assigned to them.

4. The President shall appoint Vice-Presidents, other than the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, from among the Members of the Commission (8).

5. The President shall adopt a decision on the order of precedence of all the Members of the Commission. As regards the Members of the Commission other than the Vice-Presidents, that order shall be based on their seniority in the Commission or, in the event of equal seniority, on their age.

6. The President may decide at any time to set up groups of Members of the Commission. The decision of the President shall determine the mandate, the composition, the duration and the working methods of the group, and shall appoint the Member(s) to lead the work of the group.

7. If Members of the Commission are prevented from carrying out their duties, the President shall appoint replacements from among the other Members of the Commission and adopt the provisions implementing that decision.

8. A Member of the Commission shall resign if the President so requests (9).

9. The President shall ensure the proper application of the Code of Conduct for the Members of the Commission (10).

Members of the Commission

1. The Members of the Commission shall perform their duties in complete independence, under the authority of the President. They shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity (11). They shall devote themselves fully to the performance of their duties in the Union interest.

2. Each Member of the Commission shall take responsibility for action in the field of activity assigned to them, without prejudice to the principle of collegiality.

3. The Members of the Commission shall act in accordance with the highest professional and ethical standards and in particular with the Code of Conduct for the Members of the Commission.

4. The Members of the Commission shall have a cabinet, which shall assist them in carrying out their duties. The rules governing the composition and operation of the cabinets shall be laid down by a decision of the President.

Priorities, work programme and budget

1. The Commission shall establish its priorities in line with the political guidelines laid down by the President. It shall reflect these priorities in its work programme and the draft general budget of the European Union, which it adopts each year.

2. Each year the President shall take stock of the current year and set out the Commission’s priorities for the future in the State of the Union address in the European Parliament (12).

3. In order to clarify and organise the implementation of the priorities, the Commission shall attach to its work programme a list of the main initiatives it is planning to adopt during the year in question. The Commission may update its work programme during the course of the year.

4. At the President’s initiative, the Commission shall hold orientation debates to clarify its policy lines as well as to discuss any politically sensitive and/or important subjects or general political developments.

5. The arrangements for validating the programming of Commission initiatives shall be set out by the President.

Types of decision-making procedure

1. The Commission shall adopt initiatives in one of the legal forms provided for in Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or any other initiative falling within its remit (‘acts’):
(a) by oral procedure, at the meetings of the Commission, in accordance with section 1 of this Chapter;
(b) by written procedure, in accordance with section 2 of this Chapter;
(c) by empowerment procedure, in accordance with section 3 of this Chapter;
(d) by delegation procedure, in accordance with section 4 of this Chapter,

2. Any draft act adopted by the Commission under one of the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be entered beforehand in the information technology system established for that purpose, unless the Secretary-General expressly decides otherwise.

Meetings of the Commission

1. Meetings of the Commission shall be convened by the President.

2. The Commission shall meet, as a general rule, once a week (‘ordinary’ meetings). It shall also meet whenever the President deems it necessary (‘extraordinary’ meetings).

3. In exceptional circumstances, if some or all of the Members of the Commission are prevented from attending a meeting of the Commission in person, the President may invite them to participate by means of telecommunication systems allowing for their identification and effective participation.

4. Acts may be adopted by oral procedure at ordinary meetings or extraordinary meetings. The rules for organising and running the meetings, as well as the procedural rules, are set out in Articles 8 to 16.
5. At the initiative of the President, the Commission may also hold orientation debates, seminars, informal meetings or working meetings on specific topics.

Setting the agenda

1. The President shall set the agenda of each ordinary and extraordinary meeting of the Commission.

2. In order to facilitate the planning of the Commission’s work and to take account of the Commission’s communication strategy, the Secretary-General, under the authority of the President, shall establish the list of items that are planned for inclusion on the agenda of meetings of the Commission.

3. In addition to the recurring items which are automatically placed on the agenda of each meeting of the Commission, such as the approval of minutes, interinstitutional relations, coordination of external action or administrative and budgetary matters, the politically sensitive and/or important matters and draft acts, in particular those linked to the Commission’s priorities, shall generally be included on the agenda.

4. In order to guarantee the effective exercise of collegiality, any items included on the agenda of a meeting of the Commission shall be carried over to a later meeting if:
(a) the relevant documents are not made available to the Members of the Commission within the time limits set out in Article 11(3), unless the President decides otherwise;
(b) one (or more) of the language versions required by Article 41(1), point (b) is (are) missing, unless the President decides to ask the Commission for approval ‘in principle’, accompanied by an ad hoc empowerment for the purpose of adopting the draft act once the language version(s) is (are) available.

5. The Commission may, on a proposal from the President, discuss a matter that does not appear on the agenda.

Conditions for the inclusion of items on the agenda

1. Without prejudice to paragraph 4, the following information shall be available when any request is made to include on the agenda a draft act referred to in Article 8(3):
(a) the title of the draft act and a brief description of its objective;
(b) the reasons for presenting it and for its timing;
(c) its link with the political guidelines laid down by the President and the priorities set by the Commission and with the Commission’s work programme and its communication strategy;
(d) the state of preparation of the file, including as regards better regulation requirements and the interservice consultation;
(e) the explicit agreement of the Member of the Commission responsible for the budget if the proposal has significant budgetary implications.

2. The conditions set out in paragraph 1 also apply to requests for inclusion on the agenda of draft acts of general application presented under miscellaneous administrative and budgetary matters.

3. Articles 29, 36 and 41 shall apply to requests for inclusion on the agenda of draft acts submitted under empowerment and delegation procedures.

4. Unless the President decides otherwise, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply to:
(a) discussion papers requested by the President to structure orientation debates;
(b) information notes from Members of the Commission who inform succinctly the Commission of matters under their responsibility, without asking it to adopt a position, and which commit only their authors and the inclusion of which on the agenda has been specifically authorised by the President.

5. Any request to include an item on the agenda of a meeting of the Commission shall be submitted by one (or more) Member(s) of the Commission to the President at least nine working days before the meeting of the Commission in question. In exceptional circumstances, the President may accept a late request for an item to be included in the agenda. The Secretary-General shall be informed of any request for inclusion in the agenda.

Preparation of agenda items

1. Items included on the agenda of an ordinary or an extraordinary meeting of the Commission shall be prepared at the weekly meeting of the Heads of Cabinet chaired by the Secretary-General.

2. Special meetings of cabinet members shall be organised, at the President’s initiative, for a preliminary discussion of specific matters or files. A member of the President’s cabinet shall chair these meetings. They shall usually be held in the week prior to that of the meeting of the Commission.

3. The Interinstitutional Relations Group (13) shall examine the positions to be adopted by the Commission in interinstitutional matters, in particular files pending before the European Parliament and/or the Council.

4. The Group for External Coordination (14) shall examine the positions to be adopted by the Commission in the field of external relations and shall ensure consistency between the external and internal aspects of the Commission’s work.

5. In principle, any matter on which an agreement has been reached at one of the preparatory meetings referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 may not be reopened at a later stage.

6. If an agreement is reached on an agenda item at a weekly meeting of the Heads of Cabinet and that item is kept on the agenda, the act in question may be adopted without debate during the meeting of the Commission.

7. If an agreement is reached at the weekly meeting of the Heads of Cabinet or at the Commission meeting, the act in question may be adopted, on a proposal from the President, by finalisation written procedure, pursuant to Article 22.
8. In all the preparatory meetings referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4, cabinet members shall speak on behalf of the Member of the Commission whom they represent on the basis of a clear mandate.

Making the agenda and other documents available

1. The Secretary-General shall make a draft agenda available to the Members of the Commission no later than the working day before the weekly meeting of the Heads of Cabinet.

2. At the latest on the day before ordinary or extraordinary meetings of the Commission, the Secretary-General shall make the agenda, as set by the President, available to the Members of the Commission. The agenda shall be made public in accordance with Article 63.
3. The documents required for the discussion of each of the agenda items shall be made available to the Members of the Commission no later than the working day prior to the weekly meeting of the Heads of Cabinet.
Unless a derogation is granted by the President on the basis of a duly reasoned written request, the documents intended for discussion at a special meeting of cabinet members shall be made available to the Members of the Commission at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. In the case of very long documents, the Secretary-General, in agreement with the President, may allow more time.
The documents shall be made available subject to the adoption procedure being initiated by the Secretary-General after verifying in particular the agreement of the Member of the Commission responsible and, where applicable, of the Members of the Commission who are jointly responsible or associated.

Quorum and attendance of Members at meetings of the Commission

1. The number of Members whose presence is necessary for the Commission to take valid decisions at its ordinary and extraordinary meetings shall be equal to the majority of its Members.

2. In exceptional circumstances, if some or all Members of the Commission are prevented from attending a meeting of the Commission in person, the President may invite them to participate by means of telecommunication systems allowing for their identification and effective participation. They shall then be deemed to be present for the purposes of the quorum.

3. In accordance with the principle of collegiality, the Members of the Commission shall attend all ordinary and extraordinary meetings of the Commission in their entirety.

4. The President may release a Member of the Commission from the obligation to attend an ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the Commission, if justified by compelling circumstances, such as obligations with regard to other European Union institutions or related to the external representation of the European Union. In order to obtain such authorisation, the Member of the Commission concerned shall address a duly substantiated written request to the President in good time.

5. Absent Members cannot be replaced.

Decision-making

1. The Commission’s decisions shall be adopted on a proposal from one or more of its Members. They shall be adopted by a majority of its Members.

2. When a decision is to be voted on, at the initiative of the President or at the request of one or more of the Members of the Commission, the following rules shall apply:
(a) a vote on a draft act may concern, at the President’s discretion: (i) the original draft act, or (ii) an amended draft act submitted either by the Member(s) of the Commission responsible or by the President;
(b) before proceeding to a vote, the President shall establish that the necessary quorum exists, as laid down in Article 12(1);
(c) each Member of the Commission shall have one vote, which may not be delegated;
(d) the draft act shall be adopted if the number of votes in favour is equal to or more than a majority of its Members;
(e) the outcome of the vote, declared by the President, and all the information relating to it, shall be recorded in the minutes of the Commission meeting, in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 16(3); the same shall apply to any statements (such as explanations of vote) which Members of the Commission ask to be recorded;
(f) in certain exceptional circumstances the President may decide to hold a secret ballot.

Confidentiality of Commission meetings

1. Meetings of the Commission shall not be public.

2. Discussions in the meetings shall be protected by the principle of confidentiality.

Attendance at Commission meetings

1. The President shall decide which persons are allowed to attend the Commission’s discussions at its ordinary or extraordinary meetings.

2. Unless the President decides otherwise, the following persons may attend the Commission meetings: the Secretary-General, the President’s Head of Cabinet, the Director-General of the Legal Service, the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Communication, the Head of the Commission’s Spokesperson’s Service and the Director of the Secretariat-General’s Directorate responsible for Decision-making and Collegiality.
Any of those persons who is unable to attend may be replaced by a representative.

3. The President may decide to invite any other person on a particular agenda item.

4. The President may, on their own initiative or at the request of a Member of the Commission, restrict the presence of members of Commission staff and other persons for all or part of a meeting.

5. The Secretary-General shall assist the President in order to ensure compliance with the rules set out in paragraphs 1 to 4.

Minutes of Commission meetings

1. Minutes of all ordinary and extraordinary meetings of the Commission shall be drawn up by the Secretary-General.

2. The ordinary minutes (‘PVO’) shall give an account of the conduct of the meeting, the discussions and the adoption of acts, which is information that is to be made public.

3. The ordinary minutes may be accompanied by special minutes (‘PVS’), which shall record the discussions and acts not covered by paragraph 2, the votes taken and the statements which Members of the Commission ask to have recorded in the minutes. The special minutes shall be classified.

4. The draft minutes (PVO and PVS) shall be submitted to the Commission for approval at a subsequent meeting. The approved minutes shall be authenticated by the handwritten or electronic signatures of the President and the Secretary-General.

5. The ordinary minutes shall be made public once they have been approved by the Commission, in accordance with Article 63(2).

Decisions taken by written procedure

1. The Commission’s decisions shall be adopted by written procedure on a proposal from one or more of its Members.

2. A draft act originally placed on the agenda of a Commission meeting for adoption by oral procedure may be adopted by written procedure on a proposal from the President.

3. Any Member of the Commission may send the President a reasoned request for the draft act submitted for adoption by written procedure to be mentioned at a meeting of the Commission or placed on the agenda of a meeting of the Commission. The Secretary-General shall be informed of such requests.

4. All draft acts to be adopted by written procedure shall be made available to the Members of the Commission, indicating the expiry date for the written procedure.

5. In the course of a written procedure, in accordance with Articles 24 to 28 and Article 41, the original draft act, the time limit or any other aspect of the procedure may be amended. The written procedure may also be suspended or abandoned.

6. The act shall stand adopted on expiry of the time limit, provided that the draft act complies with all the required conditions of substance and form.

7. The Secretary-General shall ensure that the written procedure runs smoothly and establish that it has been completed.

Initiation of a written procedure

1. The Secretary-General shall be responsible for initiating written procedures. To that end the Secretary-General shall verify that the required conditions of substance and form have been met, including the agreement of the responsible Member(s) of the Commission, the possible co-responsible or associated Member(s) and, where necessary, the agreement of the President.

2. Without prejudice to Article 22, the positive opinion of the Legal Service, taking into account its comments, if any, made in connection with its mission as described in Article 53(2), as well as the positive opinion of the other services consulted, is required before a written procedure is initiated. The opinions of the Legal Service and of the other services consulted may be express or tacit.

Time limits for a written procedure

1. The Secretary-General shall set the expiry dates for written procedures.

2. The time limit for an ordinary written procedure shall be no less than five working days from the date on which the draft act was made available to the Members of the Commission.

3. However, the Secretary-General may set a shorter time limit, as provided for in Articles 20, 21 and 22.
4. The initial expiry date may be postponed by the Secretary-General during the procedure:
(a) at the request of the Member of the Commission responsible, or
(b) on the initiative of the Secretary-General, in particular if the draft act does not meet all the required conditions of substance or form.

5. The initial expiry date may also be brought forward by the Secretary-General during the procedure, at the request of the Member of the Commission responsible or on the initiative of the Secretary-General if required by special circumstances. If bringing the expiry date forward alters the type of written procedure, the prior agreement of the President shall be required.

6. The Secretary-General shall inform the Members of the Commission of any change to the expiry date.

Expedited written procedure

1. The Member of the Commission responsible for a draft act may request an expedited written procedure. The request shall be duly justified by unforeseen and/or exceptional circumstances. It shall not be used as a means of making up for an administrative delay.

2. The President may authorise the Secretary-General to set the minimum time limit to three working days from the date when the draft act was made available to the Members of the Commission.

Urgent written procedure

1. The Member of the Commission responsible for a draft act may request an urgent written procedure. The request shall be duly justified. It shall not be used as a means of making up for an administrative delay.

2. The President may authorise the Secretary-General to set the time limit to less than three working days from the date when the draft act was made available to the Members of the Commission in order to enable an urgent act to be adopted.

3. The urgent written procedure is used for the adoption of the Commission’s communication on a Council position adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure.

Finalisation written procedure

1. On a proposal from the President, any draft act which has been placed on the agenda of an ordinary or extraordinary meeting of the Commission for adoption by oral procedure may be adopted by finalisation written procedure if agreement has been reached on it at the weekly meeting of Heads of Cabinet and a positive opinion has been received on it from the Legal Service, or if agreement has been reached on it at the meeting of the Commission.
Where agreement is reached on the draft act at the Commission meeting, the finalisation written procedure may be initiated even in the absence of a positive opinion from the Legal Service and the other services consulted.

2. The time limit for the finalisation written procedure may be set at less than five working days. The expiry date shall be after the meeting of the Commission for which the draft act was originally placed on the agenda, and before the following Commission meeting.

3. The draft act shall be put on the list of politically sensitive and/or important written procedures, as mentioned in Article 28.

Written procedure in the field of coordination and surveillance of economic and budgetary policies of the Member States, particularly in the euro area

1. At the request of the Member of the Commission responsible for the draft act, the President may authorise the initiation of a written procedure in the field of coordination and surveillance of economic and budgetary policies of the Member States, particularly in the euro area.

2. Without prejudice to Article 25, any Member of the Commission wishing to suspend this procedure shall send the President a reasoned request following an impartial and objective assessment of the structure, reasoning or result of the proposed draft act.

3. If, following examination of the request, the President considers that the reasons given are not well-founded, the President may refuse to allow the suspension and may decide that the written procedure shall continue.
In that case, the Secretary-General shall ask the position of the other Members of the Commission to ensure, by analogy, the respect of the quorum referred to in Article 250 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

4. At the end of the time limit set, if needed extended by the time necessary for the President to examine the request for suspension and for the Secretary-General to collect the position of the other members, the act shall be adopted by the Commission.

5. The President may also include the draft act on the agenda of a subsequent Commission meeting with a view to its adoption.

Amendment of a written procedure

1. The Member of the Commission responsible for the draft act may, on their own initiative or at the request of another Member, amend the original draft act. The Member of the Commission may also ask the Secretary-General to amend the time limit in accordance with Article 19(4) and (5) or any other aspect of the ongoing procedure.

2. The Secretary-General shall inform the Members of the Commission of the amendments and, if applicable, make available an amended draft act accompanied, if necessary, by a new time limit.

Suspension of a written procedure

1. Without prejudice to Article 23, any Member of the Commission may send the Secretary-General a reasoned request for suspension of an ongoing written procedure. The Secretary-General shall suspend the procedure and inform the Members of the Commission thereof.

2. The Secretary-General may also suspend the procedure on their own initiative if the Secretary-General finds that the draft act does not meet all the required conditions of substance or form. The Secretary-General shall inform the Members of the Commission thereof.

Reopening of a written procedure following suspension

1. The Secretary-General shall reopen a written procedure when:
(a) the Member(s) of the Commission who requested the suspension send(s) the Secretary-General a request for the suspension to be lifted;
(b) the conditions of substance and form have been met.

2. The Secretary-General shall inform the Members of the Commission and, if applicable, make available to them an amended draft act. The Secretary-General shall set a new time limit if necessary.

Abandonment of a written procedure

1. A written procedure shall be abandoned:
(a) at the request of the Member(s) of the Commission responsible;
(b) on the initiative of the Secretary-General when justified by the conditions of substance or form;
(c) when, at the request of a Member of the Commission, the President accepts that the draft act be placed on the agenda for a Commission meeting with a view to its adoption by oral procedure, in accordance with Article 17(3).

2. The Secretary-General shall inform the Members of the Commission that the written procedure has been abandoned on the basis of paragraph 1(a) or 1(b).

Information about written procedures

1. Politically sensitive and/or important draft acts in the process of being adopted by written procedure and draft acts to be adopted by finalisation written procedure shall be brought to the attention of the Commission at its closest meeting.

2. Taking into account the proposals by the President and the Members responsible, the Secretary-General shall make available a list of the draft acts for the weekly meeting of Heads of Cabinet.

3. The list may be updated until the Commission meeting at which the draft acts in question are brought to the attention of the Commission.

Granting of a general empowerment

1. The Commission may grant a general empowerment to one or more of its Members to adopt management or administrative acts of a routine and recurring nature on its behalf and under its responsibility.

2. The empowered Member of the Commission shall be accountable to the Commission for ensuring compliance with the conditions and rules for exercising the general empowerment.

3. The President shall submit to the Commission the draft decision to grant a general empowerment. The agreement of the Member(s) of the Commission concerned shall be obtained in advance. The decision granting the general empowerment shall be adopted by oral procedure or, where appropriate, by finalisation written procedure.

4. The Commission retains the right to exercise itself the powers it has granted. It may also give instructions to the Member(s) of the Commission exercising the general empowerment.

5. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the rules on delegation in respect of financial matters, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Financial Regulation) (15), and to the powers conferred on the appointing authority and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (16).

Rules for the granting of a general empowerment

1. A decision to grant a general empowerment shall specify:
(a) the Member(s) of the Commission to whom the general empowerment is granted;
(b) the precise subject-matter and scope of the general empowerment and the conditions for exercising it;
(c) a clear justification as to why the measures to be taken by the empowered Member(s) of the Commission can be regarded as management or administrative acts;
(d) the rules for exercising the general empowerment, in particular as regards interservice consultation.

2. The requesting service shall send to the Secretary-General the preliminary draft decision to grant a general empowerment. The Secretary-General shall then carry out the interservice consultation and take the appropriate steps for the decision to be adopted by the Commission.

Conditions and rules for exercising a general empowerment

1. Before exercising a general empowerment, the empowered Member of the Commission shall determine, on their own initiative or on the basis of an analysis by the service responsible, whether, on grounds of a political assessment or other circumstances, the act should be adopted by oral or written procedure. If there is any doubt, the empowered Member of the Commission shall consult the President.

2. The positive opinion of the Legal Service, taking into account its comments, if any, made in virtue of its duties as described in Article 53(2), as well as the positive opinion of the other services consulted, shall be required before the adoption of acts by general empowerment. The opinions of the Legal Service and that of the other services consulted may be express or tacit.

3. The service responsible shall request, before the general empowerment is exercised, the agreement of the empowered Member(s) of the Commission and, if applicable, of any associated Members of the Commission.

4. The Secretariat-General shall verify that the required conditions of substance and form have been complied with before the draft act is submitted to the empowered Member of the Commission for adoption.

5. The empowered Member of the Commission shall adopt the act and certify that the conditions and rules governing the acts being adopted have been complied with.

6. The act shall stand adopted once the signature – handwritten or electronic – of the empowered Member of the Commission, as affixed for the purposes of adoption, has been recorded in the information technology system provided for that purpose.

7. If empowered Members of the Commission are prevented from exercising the general empowerment which has been granted to them, it may be exercised by another Member of the Commission.

Subdelegation of a general empowerment

1. The Member of the Commission who has been granted a general empowerment may subdelegate all or part of their delegated powers to a Director-General or Head of Service, unless this is expressly prohibited in the general empowerment decision. The Member of the Commission may revoke the subdelegation at any time. The service responsible shall notify the Secretariat-General of the decision to subdelegate or revoke.

2. The Director-General or Head of Service shall act under the authority of the Member of the Commission to whom the empowerment has been granted. The empowered Member of the Commission shall remain accountable to the Commission for ensuring compliance with the conditions and rules for exercising the general empowerment.

3. The decision to subdelegate shall define the subject-matter and scope of the subdelegated powers, which shall in no case exceed those specified in the general empowerment decision.

4. Subdelegated powers cannot be delegated further, except in the cases referred to in Article 33.
5. The Director-General or Head of Service shall adopt the draft act and certify that the conditions and rules governing the acts being adopted have been complied with.

6. The act shall stand adopted once the signature – handwritten or electronic – of the Director-General or Head of Service, as affixed for the purposes of adoption, has been recorded in the information technology system provided for that purpose.

Subdelegation for decisions awarding grants and contracts

1. The Director-General or Head of Service to whom powers have been granted by subdelegation under Article 32 may in turn decide to subdelegate certain decisions selecting projects and certain individual decisions awarding grants and public procurement contracts to a Deputy Director-General, a Director or, in agreement with the Member of the Commission responsible, a Head of Unit.

2. The Deputy Director-General, Director or Head of Unit shall act under the authority of the Director-General or Head of Service who has received the subdelegated powers. The empowered Member of the Commission shall remain accountable to the Commission for ensuring compliance with the conditions and rules for exercising the general empowerment.

3. Subdelegations shall apply for the adoption of certain decisions selecting projects and of individual decisions awarding grants and public procurement contracts where the basic act provides that the Commission shall adopt a decision either on its own or after consulting a committee (17) and the committee has delivered a favourable opinion. Such decisions shall not be subject to interservice consultation.

4. The Deputy Director-General, Director or Head of Unit to whom powers have been granted by subdelegation shall adopt the draft act and certify that the conditions and rules governing the acts being adopted have been complied with.

5. The act shall stand adopted once the signature – handwritten or electronic – of the person who has received the subdelegated powers, as affixed for the purposes of adoption, has been recorded in the information technology system provided for that purpose.

Register of general empowerments

The Secretariat-General shall keep a register of general empowerments, which shall be accessible on the Commission’s intranet. When a general empowerment is subdelegated, it shall be recorded in the register.

Ad hoc empowerment

1. The Commission may grant an ad hoc empowerment, limited in time, to one or more of its Members to adopt, in agreement with the President, certain one-off and specific measures, of which the Commission has determined the substance.

2. Ad hoc empowerments may be granted to formalise the results of the Commission’s deliberations at its meetings, in particular by finalising and adopting an act which has previously been approved in principle at a meeting of the Commission once all the required language versions are available, as provided for in Article 8(4), point (b).

3. Any request by a Member of the Commission for an ad hoc empowerment shall be duly justified and placed on the agenda of a Commission meeting.

4. Ad hoc empowerments shall be exercised mutatis mutandis in accordance with the procedures described in Article 31(2) to (6) and always in agreement with the President and in close cooperation with the Secretariat-General.

5. Ad hoc empowerments may not be subdelegated.

Granting of a direct delegation of powers

1. The Commission may delegate powers directly to one (or more) Director(s)-General or Head(s) of Service to adopt management or administrative acts of a routine and recurring nature on its behalf and under its responsibility.

2. The Director-General or Head of Service to whom delegated powers have been granted shall be accountable to the Commission for ensuring compliance with the conditions and rules for exercising the direct delegation of powers.

3. The President shall submit to the Commission the draft decision to grant a direct delegation. The agreement of the Member(s) of the Commission concerned shall be obtained in advance. The decision granting the direct delegation shall be adopted by oral procedure or, where appropriate, by finalisation written procedure.

4. The Commission shall retain the right to exercise itself the powers it has granted. It may also give instructions to the Director-General or Head of Service exercising the direct delegation.

5. Except in the cases referred to in Article 39, powers that have been delegated directly to a Director-General or Head of Service may not be subdelegated further.

6. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be without prejudice to the rules on delegation in respect of financial matters, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the Financial Regulation), and to the powers conferred on the appointing authority and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment.

Rules for the granting of a direct delegation

1. A decision to grant a direct delegation shall specify:
(a) the Director-General or Head of Service to whom the powers are directly delegated;
(b) the precise subject-matter and scope of the direct delegation and the conditions for exercising it;
(c) a clear justification as to why the measures to be taken by the Director-General or Head of Service to whom the powers are delegated can be regarded as management or administrative acts;
(d) the rules for exercising the direct delegation, in particular as regards interservice consultation.

2. The requesting service shall send the preliminary draft decision granting the direct delegation to the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General shall then carry out the interservice consultation and take the appropriate steps for the decision to be adopted by the Commission.

Conditions and rules for exercising a direct delegation

1. Before exercising a direct delegation, the Director-General or Head of Service to whom the powers are delegated shall determine whether, on grounds of a political assessment or other circumstances, the act should be adopted by oral or written procedure. If there is any doubt, the Director-General or Head of Service shall consult the Member of the Commission to whom the field of activity has been assigned.

2. The positive opinion of the Legal Service, taking into account its comments, if any, made in virtue of its duties as described in Article 53(2), as well as the positive opinion of the other services consulted, shall be required before the adoption of acts by direct delegation. The opinions of the Legal Service and those of the other services consulted may be express or tacit.

3. The Director-General or Head of Service to whom the powers are delegated shall adopt the draft act and certify that the conditions and rules governing the acts being adopted have been complied with.

4. The act shall stand adopted once the signature – handwritten or electronic – of the Director-General or Head of Service, as affixed for the purposes of adoption, has been recorded in the information technology system provided for that purpose.

5. If the Director-General or Head of Service to whom a direct delegation has been granted is prevented from exercising it, it may be exercised by the official designated in accordance with Article 52.

Subdelegation for decisions awarding grants and contracts

1. The Director-General or Head of Service to whom delegated powers have been granted under Article 36 may in turn decide to subdelegate certain decisions selecting projects and certain individual decisions awarding grants and public procurement contracts to a Deputy Director-General, a Director or, in agreement with the Member of the Commission responsible, a Head of Unit.

2. The subdelegated Deputy Director-General, Director or Head of Unit shall act under the authority of the Director-General or Head of Service to whom delegated powers have been granted. The Director-General or Head of Service shall remain accountable to the Commission for ensuring compliance with the conditions and rules for exercising the direct delegation.

3. Subdelegations shall apply for the adoption of certain decisions selecting projects and of individual decisions awarding grants and public procurement contracts where the basic act provides that the Commission is to adopt a decision either on its own or after consulting a committee (18) and the committee has delivered a favourable opinion. Such decisions shall not be subject to interservice consultation.

4. The Deputy Director-General, Director or Head of Unit to whom powers have been granted by subdelegation shall adopt the draft act and certify that the conditions and rules governing the acts being adopted have been complied with.

5. The act shall stand adopted once the signature – handwritten or electronic – of the Deputy Director-General, Director or Head of Unit, as affixed for the purposes of adoption, has been recorded in the information technology system provided for that purpose.

Register of direct delegations

The Secretariat-General shall keep a register of direct delegations, which shall be accessible on the Commission’s intranet.

Language rules for the decision-making procedures

1. All draft acts to be adopted by oral procedure, by written procedure, by the exercise of a general or ad hoc empowerment, or by the exercise of a direct delegation shall be available, as appropriate, in:
(a) the language(s) stipulated by the President, taking account of the minimum requirements of the Members of the Commission;
(b) the language(s) required for publication of the act in the Official Journal of the European Union or for its notification to the addressee(s) so that it can enter into force or take effect.

2. All draft acts to be discussed at a Commission meeting shall be made available to the Members of the Commission in the languages required under paragraph 1.
3. All draft acts to be adopted by written procedure shall be made available to the Members of the Commission, when the procedure is initiated, in the language(s) required under paragraph 1(a), and, before expiry of the procedure, in the language(s) required under paragraph 1(b). If the condition set out in paragraph 1(b) is not met, the Secretary-General shall extend the time limit or suspend the written procedure.

4. Where the Legal Service carries out a legal-linguistic revision of a draft act, all the necessary language versions shall be available in good time.

5. In the case of draft acts to be adopted by oral or by written procedure, the President shall assess any specific and/or exceptional situation in which some of the language versions required under paragraph 1(a) cannot be made available for duly substantiated reasons. In the case of draft acts to be adopted by the oral procedure in particular, depending on the circumstances, the President may decide to carry over the item concerned to the agenda of a later meeting.

6. In the case of draft acts to be adopted by the exercise of a general or ad hoc empowerment or by the exercise of a direct delegation, the act can be adopted only once the language version(s) referred to in paragraph 1(b) is(are) available.

7. Where an act adopted is to be officially transmitted to the other Union institutions and/or published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the text shall be available in all the official languages.

Information concerning adopted acts

The Commission shall take note of the acts adopted by written procedure, empowerment procedure and delegation procedure, which shall be recorded in day notes. The day notes shall be referred to in the minutes of the next Commission meeting.
A summary note shall be drawn up at each Commission meeting. It shall list acts adopted autonomously by the Commission by oral procedure. It shall also refer to the day notes of acts adopted by written procedure.

Authentication of adopted acts

1. Non-legislative acts adopted autonomously by the Commission shall be authenticated on or after their adoption and, if necessary, before their notification to their addressee(s) or their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

2. The acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be authenticated as follows:
(a) for those that are adopted by the oral procedure:
(i) by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the summary note drawn up during the Commission meeting at which they were adopted and which lists those acts;
(ii) when the President makes use of telecommunication systems under the conditions laid down in Article 12(2), and when circumstances prevent the signing of the summary note, the express written agreement of the Secretary-General may exceptionally replace its signature and shall then be attached to that note;
(b) for those that are adopted by the written procedure, by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Secretary-General on the day note referred to in Article 42 in which they are recorded;
(c) for those that are adopted by empowerment procedure, by the handwritten or electronic signature of the empowered Member of the Commission on the adoption sheet and the record thereof; these acts shall be recorded in the corresponding day note referred to in Article 42;
(d) for those that are adopted by delegation procedure (including by subdelegation), by the handwritten or electronic signature of the Director-General, Deputy Director- General, Director or Head of Unit to whom powers have been delegated or subdelegated on the adoption sheet and the record thereof; these acts shall be recorded in the corresponding day note referred to in Article 42.
3. The acts referred to in paragraph 2 shall be attached, including in electronic format where applicable, in the authentic language(s), to the summary notes or day notes referred to in that paragraph in such a way that they cannot be separated from them.

Signature of adopted acts

1. Non-legislative acts adopted by the Commission by the oral procedure and by the written procedure in the form of regulations, directives or decisions, when the latter do not specify to whom they are addressed, shall be deemed to have been signed by the President of the Commission within the meaning of Article 297(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union when the President affixes their signature to the summary note referred to in Article 42.
2. Where the President makes use of Article 7(3) and where the circumstances prevent the summary note from being signed, their express written consent may exceptionally replace their signature and shall be attached to that note.

3. Non-legislative acts adopted by the Commission by the oral procedure or by the written procedure in the form of decisions, when the latter specify to whom they are addressed, shall be deemed to have been signed by the Member of the Commission to whom the field of activity has been assigned when the Secretary-General affixes the signature referred to respectively in Article 43(2), points (a) and (b).

4. Acts referred to in paragraph 1 and adopted by the written procedure, which require publication in order to enter into force so urgently that it is not possible to wait for the signature of the summary note at the next Commission meeting, shall be deemed to have been signed by the President within the meaning of Article 297(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union when the Secretary-General affixes the signature referred to in Article 43(2), point (b).

5. The signature of the acts adopted by the empowerment procedure, by the delegation procedure or by subdelegation in one of the forms laid down in Article 297(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, shall be delegated, as the case may be, to the Member of the Commission thus empowered or to the Director-General, Deputy Director-General, Director or Head of Unit to whom powers have been delegated or subdelegated. This signature shall be affixed in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 43(2), points (c) and (d).

Structure and role of services

1. The Commission shall establish an organisational structure composed of a number of Directorates-General and other Commission services, as well as offices whose mandate is to perform administrative and support tasks (equivalent services). They form together a single administrative service and share collective responsibility for the coherence of all policies. In principle, Directorates-General, other services and equivalent services shall be divided into directorates, and directorates into units.

2. The mission of all services shall be to assist the Commission in the preparation and performance of its tasks, and in the achievement of its priorities.

Ethics and good administrative behaviour

The staff of the Commission shall comply with the highest professional and ethical rules. They shall act in accordance with the rules laid down in the Staff Regulations (19) and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

Creation of specific functions and structures

1. In order to carry out particular tasks and to meet specific needs which cannot be handled in an optimal manner by a service established by the Commission, the President may set up specific functions or structures, such as task forces that pool expertise from various services.

2. The President shall determine their mandate, composition, duration, the Member of the Commission responsible, the level at which the function of head of the structure concerned is established and the administrative attachment of the function or specific structure.
A Commission decision may lay down the terms of implementation, in particular with respect to the resources and functioning of the specific function or structure concerned.

Business continuity and standby duty

1. The Members of the Commission and the services of the Commission shall ensure that they take all appropriate measures to ensure continuity of service, in compliance with the provisions adopted for that purpose by the Commission or the President.

2. In the event of a general disruption affecting the services of the Commission, the President may activate the Commission’s business continuity plan.

3. In the event of a disruption limited to certain services, the Directors-General or Heads of Service concerned may activate the business continuity plans established for that purpose.

4. The Members of the Commission shall assure permanence at certain times of year so that essential functions of the Commission such as internal coordination, decision-making, representation and communication are fulfilled.

5. Commission staff shall likewise support corporate standby arrangements throughout the year in order to ensure continuity of service and provide uninterrupted assistance to the Commission in the preparation and performance of its tasks.

Crisis management

On the basis of the rules regarding the Commission’s system for the management of cross-border crises (20), the services shall coordinate and rapidly exchange information in the event of a crisis, or an exceptional or unforeseeable event affecting several policy areas, having a cross-border impact or affecting the functioning of the Union institutions.

Secretary-General

1. The Secretary-General shall assist the President so that, in the context of the political guidelines laid down by the President, the Commission achieves the priorities that it has set. The Secretary-General shall ensure that draft acts are consistent with these priorities. The Secretary-General shall inform the President in in a timely manner of any draft acts which, because of their importance or content, warrant the President’s particular attention.

2. The Secretary-General shall assist the President in preparing the proceedings and conducting the meetings of the Commission. The Secretary-General shall also assist the Members of the Commission who direct the work of groups of Members, as referred to in Article 3(6), in preparing and conducting their meetings. The Secretary-General shall provide the secretariat of these groups.

3. The Secretary-General shall contribute to ensuring overall policy coherence. To this end, the Secretary-General shall carry out planning and coordination tasks both before and after Commission decisions, in particular by means of interservice meetings and meetings between the cabinets and the services concerned.

4. The Secretary-General shall ensure the smooth running of the decision-making process. In particular, the Secretary-General shall take the necessary steps to ensure that Commission acts are notified to those concerned and/or published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Secretary-General shall also ensure that acts are transmitted to other European Union institutions and bodies, and to the national parliaments.

5. The Secretary-General shall ensure that the coordination instruments within the Commission function properly, and comment where necessary on any matter relating to interservice coordination.

6. Under the authority of the President, the Secretary-General may take mediation or arbitration measures in the event of disagreement between services.

7. The Secretary-General shall help to ensure the Commission’s compliance with the provisions on better regulation, relying in particular on the work of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

8. The Secretary-General shall help to ensure that the Commission works collegially. The Secretary-General shall ensure compliance with procedures and monitor the quality of the draft acts submitted to the Commission.

9. The Secretary-General shall also help to ensure that draft acts comply with the Commission’s external obligations and interinstitutional commitments.

10. Under the authority of the President, the Secretary-General shall ensure that information notes meet the requirements set out in Article 9(4), point (b) before making them available to the Commission, regardless of whether they have been placed on the agenda.

11. The Secretary-General shall coordinate and ensure the overall coherence of official relations with the other European Union institutions and bodies, and with the national parliaments.

12. The Secretary-General shall inform the Commission of the state of play in internal and interinstitutional procedures.

Directors-General and Heads of Service

1. The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall assist the President and the other Members of the Commission under whose authority they are placed to achieve the priorities set by the Commission, develop the policies which have been entrusted to them and implement these policies effectively.

2. The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall advise the President and the other Members of the Commission on the matters for which they are responsible and shall be entrusted with the sound management and organisation of the work of the services under their authority, in accordance with the rules and standards laid down by the Commission with a view to ensuring inter alia that it can comply with its legal and financial obligations.

3. The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall shape the organisational structures of their services on the basis of the organisation charts adopted by the Commission. They shall be responsible for allocating human and financial resources within their services.

4. The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall be responsible for implementing the part of the general budget of the European Union allocated to them in accordance with the financial rules in force.

5. The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall draw up annual management plans setting out the results to be obtained each year and identifying the means of doing so in order to contribute to achieving the objectives laid down in the multiannual strategic plan, in line with the Commission’s priorities.
The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall also produce annual activity reports that describe the progress made each year in delivering on the strategic objectives, and that certify the legality and regularity of the financial transactions carried out under their responsibility.
The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall identify and assess the risks relating to the achievement of their objectives. If necessary, they shall put in place appropriate measures to limit these risks.

6. The Directors-General and Heads of Service shall also carry out any other support, management or administrative task not falling within the responsibility of the College with the purpose of managing or administering the services on a day-to-day basis in order to assist the Commission in the preparation and execution of its mission as well as in the implementation of its priorities.

Deputising for hierarchical superiors

1. When a post holder is prevented from exercising their functions, or when the post is vacant:
(a) the functions of the Secretary-General, the Director-General or Head of Service shall be exercised by the official designated by the Commission;
(b) the functions of any other hierarchical superior shall be exercised by the official designated by the Director-General or Head of Service.

2. If no replacement has been designated, those functions shall be exercised:
(a) when the hierarchical position in question is provided by a deputy, by that deputy;
(b) when the hierarchical position in question has several deputies, by the deputy present with the highest grade and, in the event of equal grade, the deputy with the greatest seniority in the grade and, in the event of equal seniority, the one who is the eldest;
(c) when there is no post of deputy, when it is not occupied or when the deputy is prevented from exercising their duties, by the subordinate official present in the highest function group with the highest grade and, in the event of equal grade, the subordinate official with the greatest seniority in the grade and, in the event of equal seniority, the one who is eldest.

Legal Service

1. The Legal Service shall provide legal advice to the Commission.

2. The Legal Service shall ensure independent and objective review of legality, checking compatibility with European Union law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and international law, of all draft proposals for legal acts, all draft acts to be adopted by the Commission and any other document that may have legal implications. It shall oversee the form of acts and provide legal-linguistic revision where applicable.

3. The Legal Service shall have exclusive competence to represent the Commission before all courts and arbitration bodies.

Coordination and informal consultation between services

1. Interservice coordination shall reflect the principle of collegiality governing the Commission’s decision-making process. It shall contribute to compliance with the political guidelines laid down by the President and the priorities set by the Commission and shall ensure the consistency of acts and the effectiveness of the Commission’s action, in accordance with the better regulation policy.

2. The service responsible shall liaise with the services concerned by the field of activity or nature of the draft act. They shall, from the outset, work in close cooperation and in a coordinated fashion in the preparation of that draft.

3. The services shall also cooperate within interservice coordination groups or other appropriate structures that may prepare important, complex or cross-cutting proposals, including to carry out the related evaluations, fitness checks, public consultations and impact assessments.

4. Interservice coordination shall be carried out before and after the formal interservice consultation referred to in Article 55. It shall continue after the adoption of the acts by the Commission, in particular during the interinstitutional process, and when implementing Union legislation.

5. The service responsible shall ensure the quality of the drafting and form of draft acts or positions examined in the Interinstitutional Relations Group and the Group for External Coordination.

6. Without prejudice to Article 2(4), the services shall obtain the agreement of the Legal Service, the Secretariat-General, and any other concerned services before representatives of the Commission present a position of the Commission, as well as ‘non-papers’ and any other form of contribution prepared by one or more Commission services, vis-à-vis national authorities, Union institutions, international organisations or third countries.

Formal interservice consultation

1. When a draft act is at a sufficiently advanced stage of preparation, the service responsible shall formally consult the services with a legitimate interest on account of the nature, subject-matter or impact of the draft act.

2. The formal interservice consultation procedure shall also apply to Commission staff working documents.

3. Notwithstanding the procedures laid down by the President, all politically sensitive and/or important draft acts shall be agreed by the Member(s) of the Commission responsible before the launch of the formal interservice consultation.

Consultation of the Secretariat-General

1. The Secretariat-General shall be consulted on all draft acts to be adopted by the Commission by the oral procedure, with the exception of those presented under miscellaneous administrative and budgetary matters of individual scope, as well as on draft acts that, regardless of the type of decision-making procedure used:
(a) are politically sensitive and/or important;
(b) feature in the Commission’s annual work programme, including draft acts mentioned in the annexes thereto;
(c) involve institutional aspects;
(d) are subject to an evaluation, fitness check, public consultation or impact assessment.

2. The Secretariat-General shall be consulted on all positions that may commit the Commission vis-à-vis other Union institutions and bodies, third countries or international or regional organisations, and for all joint initiatives by the Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

3. The Secretariat-General shall be consulted on Commission staff working documents.

Consultation of the Legal Service

1. The Legal Service shall be consulted on all draft acts, Commission staff working documents and all documents that may have legal implications.

2. However, draft acts of a recurrent nature shall not require consultation of the Legal Service. Such exemptions shall require the prior formal agreement of the Legal Service.

Consultation of other services

1. The consultation of any service having a legitimate interest shall be required in accordance with Article 55(1).

2. The consultation of the Directorate-General for Budget shall be required for all draft acts or documents which may have an impact on the budget and finances, including contingent liabilities, or on the interpretation and application of the general EU financial rules.

3. The consultation of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security shall be required for all draft acts or Commission staff working documents that may have an impact on staff and administration.

Time limits for the formal interservice consultation

1. The services consulted shall be given at least ten working days, starting from the date on which the documents are made available, in which to submit their opinions, with or without comments.

2. In exceptional cases, an additional period may be agreed between the services concerned.

3. The positive opinions of the Legal Service and of the other services consulted may be express or tacit.
If a service consulted has not reacted within the time limit, it shall be deemed to have given its positive opinion (tacit agreement).

4. The service responsible may request a shorter time limit under the conditions set out in Article 60 relating to fast-track consultations, and in Article 61 relating to specific interservice consultations.

Fast-track consultation

1. In exceptional cases, and on duly justified grounds of urgency, the service responsible may ask the Secretariat-General for a fast-track interservice consultation, allowing the consultation to be completed within a shorter time limit than the one described in Article 59(1). This fast-track consultation may take place during a meeting or in writing.
The service responsible shall send its duly substantiated request to make use of the fast-track consultation to the Secretariat-General, indicating the format – by meeting or in writing – which it considers most appropriate. Such a request shall not be aimed at making up for any administrative delay. The Secretariat-General shall decide whether the fast-track consultation is appropriate and shall inform the President. The agreement on the texts by the Member(s) responsible before the launch of the consultation, as set out in Article 55(3), shall remain applicable.
When the Secretariat-General considers that the request to use the fast-track consultation is justified, it shall determine whether it should take place in a meeting or in writing.

2. When the fast-track consultation takes place during a meeting, the documents shall be made available to the services consulted at least 48 hours before the meeting (21) except when otherwise provided for by the Secretariat-General.
The services consulted shall express their opinions during the meeting or in writing before the meeting.
The Secretariat-General shall chair the meeting and record the results and the opinions expressed by the services consulted in the minutes of the meeting.
The end of the meeting marks the end of the consultation.

3. When the fast-track consultation takes place in writing, the time limit for the services consulted to submit their opinions shall be fixed by common agreement between the Secretariat-General and the service responsible and may not be less than 48 hours, except when otherwise provided for by the Secretariat-General.
The services consulted shall express their opinion in writing within that period. Failure by a service consulted to reply within the fixed time limit shall be deemed to constitute a positive opinion (tacit agreement).

Specific interservice consultations

1. For consultations of a recurrent nature, the Secretariat-General may authorise, at the request of the service responsible, the creation of a type of interservice consultation known as ‘specific’, the rules for which shall differ, in particular in relation to the time limit and the services consulted, from those of the consultation referred to in Article 55.
2. Once a specific consultation has been authorised, it shall systematically apply to consultations on all draft acts falling within its scope.

Result of interservice consultations

1. Once the interservice consultation is over, the service responsible shall revise the draft act and/or staff working document, taking into account the comments received.

2. The service responsible shall make the revised draft act and/or staff working document available to the services consulted, in good time. It shall inform them of the reasons for any failure to take their comments into account, before initiating the adoption procedure.

3. The positive opinion of the Legal Service, taking into account its comments, if any, made in virtue of its duties as described in Article 53(2), as well as the positive opinion of the other services consulted shall be required before a draft implementing act is submitted for a vote to the representatives of Member States in committees established to monitor the exercise of the implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

Transparency

1. The Commission shall make available to citizens the legislative proposals it submits to the European Parliament and/or the Council, accompanied by the impact assessments and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board opinions, as well as information on expert groups and committees, public consultations and beneficiaries of Union funds.

2. The Commission shall provide in its register of documents the agendas of Commission meetings, the tentative agendas for forthcoming meetings, the approved ordinary minutes of the Commission meetings and the acts published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Transparency Register

In order to ensure the transparency of its relations with interest representatives, the Commission shall observe the rules and principles of the public transparency register agreed with the other institutions (22).

Public access to Commission documents

1. In accordance with Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, any citizen of the European Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to Commission documents, regardless of the medium. This access is subject to the conditions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (23).

2. The Commission’s Detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents adopted on the basis of Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and as set out in the Annex to these Rules of Procedure, shall apply.

Document management

1. Document management shall be carried out in an efficient manner to enable the Commission to trace its actions at any time in order to comply, among other things, with its legal obligations, in particular as regards data protection, public access to documents and the security of information.

2. The Commission services shall comply with the internal rules on registration, filing, storage and transfer of documents to the Historical Archives.

Security and confidentiality

1. Without prejudice to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Members of the Commission and all Commission staff shall have a general obligation to respect the confidentiality of the discussions, information and documents that come to their attention (24).

2. Within the Commission, persons, assets and information shall be afforded appropriate levels of protection commensurate with identified risks (25). Classified European Union information shall also be given appropriate protection (26).

3. Classified information at the level of CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL or higher can only be accessed by staff who have obtained a security clearance from the national authorities of their country of origin.

Protection of personal data

1. Personal data shall be processed by the Commission in accordance with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (27) as well as other European Union rules on data protection (28).

2. The Data Protection Officer of the Commission, acting independently, shall ensure that the Union rules on data protection are applied within the Commission.

Additional measures

1. The Commission may adopt internal decisions and give administrative instructions to services to supplement these Rules of Procedure and/or to take into account technological developments.

2. The President may adopt any decision relating to the Commission’s functioning and internal organisation, including, at the start of its term of office, the Commission’s working methods.

Amendments to Commission Decision C(2000) 3614

Articles 1 to 28 of Commission Decision C(2000) 3614 of 29 November 2000 (29), the annex to that Decision containing the detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament, the annex to that Decision laying down the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public and the Rules giving effect to the Rules of Procedure annexed to Commission Decision C(2010) 1200 final (30) are deleted.

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Whereas:

(1) The Commission is to take its decisions as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen, and to ensure that its proceedings are transparent. This enables citizens to participate and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy and is accountable to the citizens, in the line with the democratic principles of the Union.

(2) In accordance with Article 15(3), third subparagraph of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), each institution of the Union is to elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents.

(3) The Commission has put in place a digital system for handling applications for access to documents, the Electronic Access to European Commission Documents (‘EASE’), designed to streamline the management of access to documents applications, emphasising the overarching goal of making documents as widely as possible accessible to the public.

Article 1
Purpose and scope
Citizens of the Union and natural or legal persons residing or having their registered office in a Member State enjoy a right of access to Commission documents under Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in accordance with these detailed Rules.

Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) ‘applicant’ means any citizens of the Union and natural or legal persons residing or having their registered office in a Member State submitting an application for access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
(2) ‘document’ refers to the definition of ‘document’ as provided in Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
(3) ‘document drawn up by the Commission’ means a document that has been approved as ready for transmission by the person who is empowered to take responsibility for its content in accordance with the rules and regulations applying to the underlying business process. This person does not have to be the person charged with the practical task of drafting or typing but is instead the person or administrative entity responsible for the content in accordance with the procedural requirements and internal rules of the European Commission for the business process concerned;
(4) ‘document received by the Commission’ means a document that has been intentionally delivered to the European Commission by the (external) sender;
(5) ‘document held by the Commission’ means:
(a) any document registered pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Decision 2021/2121 of 6 July 2020 on records management and archives (2) (hereafter ‘Commission Decision 2021/2121’); and
(b) any other document created in an information technology application controlled and owned by the Commission and stored on a corporate device or on a corporate cloud service, except for documents stored in personal folders for purely personal use outside professional activity;
(6) ‘business process’ means a pre-defined workflow with clearly defined steps deriving from the procedural requirements or internal rules, and descriptions of the outcome from each step.

Article 3
Documents directly accessible to the public 1. The Commission shall provide direct public access to legislative proposals as of their adoption. They shall be accompanied by the impact assessment and the Regulatory Scrutiny Board opinion. 2. The Commission shall provide direct public access to the following documents, inter alia, by publishing them in a timely manner in dedicated websites:
(a) agendas for Commission meetings, and tentative agendas for forthcoming meetings;
(b) approved ordinary minutes of Commission meetings;
(c) State of the Union addresses; Commission work programmes, Strategic Foresight reports, Strategic Plans, Management Plans, Annual Burden Survey, the Opinions on the Fit for Future Platform and Annual Activity reports;
(d) European Semester Country-specific recommendations, guidance documents to Member States and Scoreboard related to the Recovery and Resilience Facility;
(e) decisions related to the European Citizens Initiative;
(f) reasoned opinions of the national Parliaments and replies of the Commission on the compliance of a draft legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union;
(g) the aggregated mission expenses of Members of the Commission;
(h) minutes of meetings held between Members of the Commission, their members of Cabinet, Commission managers with interest representatives.

Article 4
Rules for providing access to documents accessible upon request 1. Applications for access to any document not falling under Article 3 shall be assessed applying the exceptions to access set out in Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 2. There is a presumption that access to the following documents, inter alia, undermines interests protected by Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001:
(a) documents being part of pre-infringement and on-going infringement proceedings;
(b) documents being part of on-going court proceedings;
(c) opinions of the Legal Service;
(d) documents being part of State aid cases;
(e) documents being part of competition cases (including merger control procedures and cartel investigations, as well as documents sent to the Commission by national competition authorities), trade defence cases, foreign subsidy cases, foreign direct investment cases, financial market supervision and resolution cases, procedures under the Digital Markets Act (3) and Digital Services Act (4) and comparable administrative procedures;
(f) documents being part of on-going administrative authorisation proceedings;
(g) documents being part of the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) investigations;
(h) bids and grant applications submitted by tenderers or grant applicants in public procurement procedures;
(i) competitions for the recruitment of staff;
(j) documents being part of investigations of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission; and
(k) documents being part of the personal file of staff members.
No access to those documents shall therefore be granted, unless the applicant demonstrates an overriding public interest in providing access prevailing over the interests protected by Article 4(2) to 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Proceedings are on-going until the act closing the proceedings can no longer be contested before the Union courts or a national court.
Parties to the proceedings under points (e) to (k) have the right to access the file pursuant to Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the applicable sector-specific legislation.

Article 5
Rules for the registration of documents and the deletion of unregistered content 1. Any content that constitutes important information that is not short-lived shall be registered pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Decision 2021/2121. 2. The following content does not meet that definition:
(a) content that, if not kept, would have no negative administrative or legal effect for the European Commission;
(b) content circulated as part of an informal, preliminary exchange of views between European Commission staff;
(c) exchanges on short-lived matters (such as exchanges regarding practical meeting arrangements);
(d) information on one’s personal situation, unless it documents or implements the procedures established by the Staff Regulations;
(e) informal, preliminary exchanges of views between European Commission staff with a view to determining the position of the administrative entity responsible for the document’s content;
(f) iterations of a preliminary document (e.g. a draft legislative proposal or policy communication or a draft impact assessment); and
(g) early versions of documents being prepared in collaborative spaces, i.e. versions that do not reflect the outcome or document of the collaborative work on the platform. 3. Unregistered emails are automatically deleted from mailboxes after 6 months. 4. Text messaging applications on corporate mobile phones shall not be used for important information that is not short-lived, unless where this is strictly required in the interest of the service. Text messaging applications shall comply with the Commission’s information technology security recommendations for the automatic disappearance of messages.

Article 6
Measures facilitating access to documents
The coverage of the Register of Commission Documents created in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall be extended gradually. A link to the Register shall be available on the EUROPA website.
The Commission shall maintain the competition cases register, the register of delegated and implementing acts and the comitology register.

Article 7
No creation of new documents
The application for access shall be refused where its fulfilment would require the creation of a new document, including where it would involve the compilation of information from several documents or the extraction of information which requires a substantial investment.

Article 8
Digital system for handling applications for access to documents 1. EASE shall consist of two parts:
(a) a public portal enabling citizens to request Commission document(s) (the ‘EASE Portal’); and
(b) an internal IT system for Commission staff to handle applications. 2. The EASE Portal shall provide information to the public regarding the manner in which applications are to be submitted and regarding the applicants’ procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 3. A help page in all official languages shall inform the public how documents can be obtained. 4. If documents are voluminous or difficult to handle, the applicant may be invited to consult the documents on the spot. This consultation shall be free.

Article 9
General rules of procedure 1. Applicants may submit applications for access to documents through the EASE Portal. Alternatively, applicants may send applications by post or e-mail to the Secretariat-General or to the relevant Directorate-General or service. 2. Applicants shall provide their name and surname, when submitting the application. If the applicant does not provide their name or surname or provides false information, the application will not be processed. 3. Applications submitted via the EASE Portal, by post or by e-mail shall indicate the country of residence and the postal address. In the absence of communication of a postal address, such applications will not be processed. 4. Replies and decisions of the Commission to applications submitted via the EASE Portal shall be deemed to be notified when the applicant opens the reply on the Portal. If the applicant does not open the reply or decision within 15 working days after the Secretariat-General, Directorate-General or service sent it, the reply or decision shall be deemed to be notified on the 16th working day as of the date when it was sent. 5. Replies and decisions to applications submitted outside of the EASE Portal shall be sent by e-mail, except when an applicant specifically requested a hard copy version, or submitted their application by letter, or when the Secretariat-General, Directorate-General or service has a particular reason to send a reply or decision by registered mail. Any communication of a reply or decision by e-mail shall include an explicit request for an acknowledgment of receipt from the applicants. Should applicants fail to acknowledge receipt after five working days, a reminder shall be sent, except where the applicant has already publicly acknowledged receipt of the reply or decision. Where an electronically transmitted reply or decision has not been acknowledged, a notification by registered mail shall take place. 6. The temporal and material scope of the application shall be clearly defined. If an application is imprecise, as referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the applicant shall be invited to provide additional information making it possible to identify the documents requested. The deadline for the reply shall start to run once the information, enabling the scope of the application to be defined and the documents to be identified, is received.
The ‘cut-off’ date, or date up until when documents are identified, shall be defined as the date of registration of the initial application. 7. The service in charge shall assist the applicant, for example by providing information on the use of public registers of documents. If within seven working days from sending the clarification request, the applicant has not provided additional information enabling the requested documents to be identified, the application shall be considered as withdrawn and the applicant will be informed accordingly. 8. Requests for information, other than environmental information, fall outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and shall be handled by the competent service of the Commission under its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. After informing the applicant, the competent service of the Commission may requalify an application submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as a request for information and handle it accordingly, unless the applicant expressly objects to and provides grounds against such a requalification. 9. In accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the service in charge may confer informally with the applicant with a view to finding a fair solution enabling the service in charge to deal with voluminous or wide-scope applications within the statutory time limits. The fair solution can concern only the number and content of the documents requested, not the time limits laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Those time limits may not be disregarded in order to provide deferred replies in batches, even as per the applicant’s request. Where a fair solution cannot be reached, the service in charge may unilaterally reduce the scope of the application, after having genuinely studied all alternative options and explained in detail in its decision the reasons why those various options would involve an unreasonable workload or be less favourable to the applicant. 10. In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation 1/58 (5), the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General or service shall reply to applications for access to documents in the language of the application, provided it was written in one of the official Union languages. Exceptionally, having obtained the express prior agreement of the applicant, the Directorate-General or service may reply in another language than the one used in the application for access in order to ensure the swiftest processing of the application. 11. Whereas the Commission strives to issue a maximum number of documents in all official languages of the Union, where the requested linguistic version of a document does not exist, the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General or service is not required to create it. It shall provide the applicant with the existing official linguistic version. Where there are several official linguistic versions other than the requested one, the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General or service shall invite the applicant to indicate its preferred existing alternative. 12. Following the full or partial refusal of access to documents, the applicant has the right to file a new application for access to the same document(s) at a later stage. This new application will be handled as a new initial application, provided that there have been relevant changes in the legal and/or factual circumstances warranting possible wider access since the first initial reply or confirmatory decision was adopted. Otherwise, the earlier initial or confirmatory decision shall be confirmed with reference to the fact that the factual and legal circumstances have not changed. 13. In accordance with its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, the Commission may reserve the right to discontinue further exchanges of correspondence which can reasonably be regarded as repetitive. 14. In exceptional circumstances, the relevant Directorate-General or service shall refuse to handle an application for access to documents where it is made in clear abuse of the right of access to documents. The refusal shall state the reasons substantiating this conclusion, including, where applicable, the reasons that led to conclude that the objective of the applicant was to paralyse the proper functioning of the institution and that the workload relating to the disclosure of the documents requested is unreasonable and disproportionate as compared to the objectives set by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Article 10
Treatment of initial applications 1. The relevant Directorate-General or service searches for the documents requested by the applicant among the documents held by the Commission. 2. All documents falling within the scope of the initial application shall be identified. Where access is refused, the reply shall provide at least a clear list by categories of documents, with enough detail so as to allow the applicant to contest the refusal, unless such identification would put at risk the interests protected by the exceptions to access to documents. Where access is partially granted or granted in full, the reply shall indicate the documents by title and unique identification number.
In the case of complex and/or bulky applications, the deadline to reply within fifteen working days may be extended by fifteen working days. Any extension of the time limit shall be justified and communicated in a timely manner to the applicant. 3. The initial reply shall include a comprehensive assessment of both the material scope and the temporal scope of the application. The initial reply shall ensure the accurate categorisation or identification of all documents falling within the scope of the initial application. In doing so, the Directorate-General or service shall nevertheless ensure that no information protected under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is disclosed. The initial reply shall inform the applicant of their right to submit, within fifteen working days from receipt of the reply, a confirmatory application to the Secretariat-General of the Commission. 4. Initial replies granting full access to the requested document(s) or wide partial access subject to the redaction solely of non-requested personal data, shall be signed at the level of the Director. In all other cases, replies shall be signed by the Director-General or Head of Service of the Directorate-General or service concerned.

Article 11
Treatment of confirmatory applications 1. The power to take decisions on confirmatory applications is delegated to the Secretary-General. The decision shall be taken by the Secretary-General after agreement of the Legal Service. 2. The applicant may, within 15 working days of receiving the initial reply, make a confirmatory application asking the Commission to reconsider its position. 3. The Secretariat-General shall perform a full administrative review of the initial reply of the Directorate-General or service responsible. However, any document(s) produced or received by the Commission after registration of the initial application will not fall into the scope of the confirmatory review in order to safeguard the two-step review process provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 4. The scope of an initial application cannot be extended at confirmatory stage.
Where the applicant expressly requests the review of the initial reply in relation to selected documents totally or partially refused, the scope of the confirmatory review shall be circumscribed accordingly.
Where the scope of the confirmatory application is larger or different from the scope at initial level, the applicant shall be invited to submit a new initial application pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 5. The Directorate-General or service which was responsible for handling the initial application shall assist the Secretariat-General in the preparation of the confirmatory decision.
The Directorate-General’s or service’s contribution shall contain all necessary elements to enable the Secretariat-General to swiftly understand the context and the main issues at stake. It shall include a full assessment regarding all arguments of the applicant presented at confirmatory stage. The contribution shall also include the original version of the documents to which access was partially or fully refused. The contribution shall be sent without delay.
The Secretariat-General may request the Directorate-General or service to perform any other necessary steps to ensure the quality and legal soundness of the treatment of the confirmatory application.
Where the applicant claims that documents falling within the scope of their application have not been identified in the initial reply, the Directorate-General or service shall undertake a renewed search for documents and, if applicable, provide the Secretariat-General with a note signed by its Director-General or Head of Service attesting to the lack of any existing relevant documents in its possession.
If, while handling a confirmatory application, the Secretariat-General becomes aware that documents existing prior to the date of registration of the initial application and falling within its scope were not identified in the initial reply, the Commission shall register ex officio a new separate initial application, in order to guarantee a swifter handling of the confirmatory application in relation to the documents already identified within the scope of the initial reply, as well as to allow the applicant to eventually introduce a confirmatory application asking the institution to reconsider its position in relation to the disclosure of the newly identified documents. 6. The confirmatory decision shall inform the applicants of their right to bring an action before the General Court or to lodge a complaint with the European Ombudsman under the conditions specified respectively in Articles 263 and 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 7. Anonymised confirmatory decisions adopted under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are in principle published on the EASE Portal.

Article 12
Consultations on third-party documents 1. As regards third-party documents, the Commission shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable, without prejudice to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present Article.
For the purposes of this Article, a ‘third party’ shall be the entity other than the Commission which is the author of the document held by the Commission.
If specific circumstances justify, the competent service may consult also the entity which submitted the document to the Commission but is not the author of the requested document. 2. If the Commission considers that it is clear that access to the third-party document(s) must be refused under one of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, access to the document(s) shall be refused without consultation of the third party. 3. The Commission shall grant access to the third-party document(s) without consulting the third party, where:
(a) the document requested has already been disclosed either by its author or under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 or similar provisions;
(b) it is clear that the disclosure, or partial disclosure, of its contents would not affect one of the interests referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 4. The third party consulted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be given a deadline for reply which shall not be shorter than five working days. The given deadline must be such as to enable the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General or service to comply with the deadlines for reply set out in Article 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. In the absence of an answer from the third party within the deadline, or if the third party is untraceable or not identifiable, the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General or service shall decide whether the exceptions in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 apply, taking into account the legitimate interests of the third party on the basis of the information at the Commission’s disposal. 5. The consultation of Member States as regards documents originating from them shall be carried out through their Permanent Representations to the European Union. 6. Where the Member State objects to the public disclosure of its document(s) invoking exceptions laid down in Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, a prima facie assessment by the Commission of those objections and of the reasons underpinning the Member State’s position in that regard shall be sufficient. The reply or decision shall refer to the Member State’s reasoning in order to enable the applicant to understand the grounds and origins of the refusal. In the absence of reasons for objection submitted by the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide that one, several or none of the exceptions apply. 7. If the Secretariat-General, the Directorate-General or service intends to give access to a document against the explicit objection of the third party or Member State, it shall notify the third party or Member State of its intention to disclose the document. The third party or Member State shall be informed of the remedies available to oppose disclosure, namely an action for annulment before the General Court and a request for interim measures before the President of the General Court. Access to the relevant document may only be given after a period of ten working days, starting to run from the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification by the third party or Member State. 8. Where a Member State receives an application for access to a document originating from the Commission, it may, for the purposes of the consultation referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, contact the Secretariat-General, which shall be responsible for determining the Directorate-General or service responsible for the document within the Commission.

Article 13
Erga omnes effect of a decision to give public access following an application
Documents disclosed by the Commission under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall become available to the public at large (‘erga omnes’
effect).
Because of that erga omnes effect of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Commission cannot:
(a) refuse to provide access to a document legally released under that Regulation to other applicants; and/or
(b) grant a narrower access to a document previously disclosed under that Regulation.
Documents disclosed under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 shall be published on the EASE Portal, or in a similar online platform. The Commission may establish specific modalities of access to such platforms. The Commission does not assume any responsibility from the reuse of the disclosed documents subject to third-party intellectual property rights. The Commission may fulfil its obligation of granting access by informing the applicant how to obtain a document that it has previously released.
The Commission may reply to a large number of applications for the same document(s) or on the same specific subject, especially when they are phrased in similar terms, via a single disclosure. Every applicant shall be informed of said publication and of the relevant means of redress.

Article 14
Personal data 1. Where a document to which public access has been requested contains personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) (hereafter ‘Regulation (EU) 2018/1725’), the handling of such personal data shall be in compliance with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the provisions of that Regulation. 2. When appearing in documents subject to an application under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the identity and function of Commission staff members at Director level or above, Members of the Commission and members of their Cabinet, where mentioned in the context of their professional duties, shall be disclosed, unless there is any reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced.
The identity and function of the following natural persons shall also be disclosed, where mentioned in the context of their professional duties, unless there is any reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests might by prejudiced:
(a) public figures acting in their public capacity, such as Head of State, President, Minister, senior State officials, Head of regional administration, Ambassador, Member of Parliament, Permanent Representative, Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General or equivalent and above of other Union institutions and bodies, or international inter-governmental organisations, as well as Principal Church officials;
(b) Presidents, Directors General, Chief Executive Officers, Chief Operating Officers or equivalent legal representative of legal persons such as companies, consortiums, non-governmental organisations, including think tanks, associations. 3. Where a document contains personal data which has already been made public lawfully, the Commission shall merely transmit the document to the applicant or refer the applicant to the public link where the document is available. 4. When applicants request access to documents containing their own personal data, those requests shall be handled under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, unless the applicants specifically request that such requests be handled under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. In the latter case, the applicant shall be informed that in order to protect the data subject’s legitimate interests, the requested documents shall be disclosed to the public without their personal data, unless the necessity and proportionality test under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 is complied with. 5. Any request of a third party consulted under Article 4(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to know the identity of the applicant would entail a transmission of personal data and shall be refused under the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Article 15
Implementation of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union and recommendations of the European Ombudsman 1. In case of annulment of its confirmatory decision by the Court, the Commission shall adopt a new confirmatory decision implementing that judgement. 2. Where the European Ombudsman has made a proposal for a solution or recommendation, the Commission may upon assessment of the arguments provided by the European Ombudsman decide to grant further or full access to documents in the framework of the Commission’s reply to the proposal or recommendation.
Both the documents thus disclosed and the Commission’s reply to the European Ombudsman shall be published on the EASE Portal.

Article 16
Special rules applicable to the applications for access to documents concerning the activities of OLAF, the Supervisory Committee and the Controller of procedural guarantees 1. As regards initial replies, by way of derogation from Article 10(4) of these Rules, if the application concerns documents relating to the administrative investigations of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) (hereafter ‘Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013’) and in Article 2(1) and (2) of Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom establishing OLAF (8) (hereafter ‘Decision 1999/352/EC,ECSC, Euratom’), the initial reply shall be signed by the OLAF Director who has been designated for this purpose at OLAF by the Director-General of OLAF.
This same rule shall apply to documents related to staff matters for which the Director-General of OLAF acts as appointing authority.
If the application concerns documents which relate to the activities of the Supervisory Committee referred to in Article 15 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, and which do not originate from OLAF, the initial reply shall be signed by the Head of the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee after having consulted the Supervisory Committee.
The Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee shall consult OLAF if the documents related to the activities of the Supervisory Committee reveal information regarding specific investigative steps taken in an OLAF investigation, or their outcome, in such a manner that the OLAF investigation can be identified by the public, including the informant or the person concerned by the investigation. The case number of the investigation shall not be considered as such information. The Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee and OLAF shall endeavour to find a solution that ensures a speedy treatment of the application. The Head of Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee shall take into account OLAF’s opinion.
If the application concerns documents which relate to the activities of the Controller of procedural guarantees referred to in Article 9a and 9b of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and which do not originate from OLAF, the initial reply shall be signed by the Controller of procedural guarantees.
The Controller of procedural guarantees shall consult OLAF if the documents related to the activities of the Controller of procedural guarantees reveal information regarding specific investigative steps taken or their outcome in an identifiable OLAF investigation. The case number of the investigation shall not be considered as such information. The Controller and OLAF shall endeavour to find a solution that ensures a speedy treatment of the application. The Controller shall take into account OLAF’s opinion. 2. As regards confirmatory decisions, by way of derogation from Article 11(1) of these Rules, when the confirmatory application concerns documents relating to administrative investigations of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 and Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom, the power to take decisions on confirmatory applications is delegated to the Director-General of OLAF. The Director-General of OLAF shall take the decision after agreement of the Legal Service. The same shall apply to confirmatory applications related to documents on staff matters for which the Director-General of OLAF acts as appointing authority.
The power to take decisions on confirmatory applications is delegated to the Secretary-General when the confirmatory applications concern initial replies issued by the Head of the Secretariat of the Supervisory Committee or by the Controller of procedural guarantees. The Secretary-General shall consult OLAF if the documents reveal information regarding specific investigative steps taken in an OLAF investigation, or their outcome, in such a manner that the OLAF investigation can be identified by the public, including the informant or the person concerned by the investigation.

Article 17
Principle of sincere cooperation
Applications for access to documents submitted by national authorities or bodies, including judicial authorities, shall be dealt in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation provided under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union.
In the case of express request of the national authorities, the Commission shall handle their application under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Article 18
Implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement
In accordance with Article 122 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (9), all references to Member States and their authorities in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the present Rules are to be understood as including the United Kingdom and its authorities in respect to documents drawn up by or obtained by the Commission before or after the end of the transition period in connection with activities of the Union pursuant to the said Agreement.

Article 19
Treatment of applications for access to classified documents
Where an application for access concerns a sensitive document as defined in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, or another document classified in accordance with the relevant security rules, it shall be handled by officials entitled to acquaint themselves with this document in accordance with the applicable Commission security rules.
Reasons shall be given on the basis of the exceptions listed in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for any decision refusing access to all or part of a classified document. Where access to the requested document cannot be refused on the basis of those exceptions, the Directorate-General or service handling the application shall ensure that the document is declassified before sending it to the applicant.
The agreement of the originating authority shall be required if access is to be given to a classified document.

Article 20
Internal organisation
All Directorates-General and services shall designate a dedicated member of staff with a solid legal background as an ‘access-to-documents’ coordinator who will ensure the proper implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 within the respective Directorate-General or service, including the respect of time-limits and consistency of the replies.
The Secretariat-General shall ensure coordination and uniform implementation of these Rules by Directorates-General and services. To that end, it shall provide them with all necessary advice, guidelines and trainings.

(1) 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 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj).

(2)
OJ L 430, 2.12.2021, p. 30, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2021/2121/oj.

(3) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj).

(4) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj).

(5) Regulation No 1 Determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p.385, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1958/1(1)/oj).

(6) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj).

(7) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/883/oj).

(8) Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/1999/352/oj).

(9) Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 29, 31.1.2020, p. 7, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/withd_2020/sign).

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/3039 of 4 December 2024 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States (notified under document C(2024) 8675)

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3039 9.12.2024
(1) Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and can have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept.
(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes the legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687(2)supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI.
(3) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447(3)was adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down emergency measures at Union level in relation to outbreaks of HPAI.
(4) More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 provides that the protection, surveillance and further restricted zones, established by the Member States concerned following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection, surveillance and further restricted zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.
(5) The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2917(4)following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry in Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Romania, which needed to be reflected in that Annex.
(6) Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2917, Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have notified the Commission of outbreaks of HPAI, in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the Brno-Venkov, Klatovy and Mladá Boleslav districts in Czechia, in the Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Schleswig Holstein states in Germany, in the Landes department in France, in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lombardia and Veneto regions in Italy, in the Bács-Kiskun, Csongrád-Csanád, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok and Somogy counties in Hungary, in the Gelderland province in the Netherlands, in the Dolnośląskie, Lubelskie, Mazowieckie, Opolskie, Śląskie and Wielkopolskie voivodeships in Poland and in the Timiș county in Romania.
(7) In addition, one of the outbreaks confirmed by Germany is located in close proximity to the border with the Netherlands. Accordingly, the competent authorities of those two Member States have duly collaborated with regard to the establishment of the necessary surveillance zone, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, as the surveillance zone extends into the territory of the Netherlands.
(8) Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around the outbreaks.
(9) The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania, and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillances zone established by those Member States are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed.
(10) In the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447, there are currently no areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for the Netherlands.
(11) In 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 rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania, the protection and surveillance zones duly established by those Member States in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687.
(12) Therefore, the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Romania in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 should be amended.
(13) In addition, protection and surveillance zones should be listed for the Netherlands in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447.
(14) Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein.
(15) Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(16) Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible.
(17) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Yambol region
BG-HPAI(P)-2024-00018 Tundzha municipality:Bolyarsko 8.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Central Bohemian Region:
CZ-HPAI(NON-P)-2024-00044 Dřísy (633119); Hlavenec (638960); Konětopy (669059); Kostelní Hlavno (670511); Lhota u Dřís (680931); Mečeříž (692395); Sudovo Hlavno (758892). 19.12.2024
Pilsen Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00009 Černíč u Hradešic (647411); Hradešice (647420); Smrkovec u Hradešic (647438); Letovy (695815); Miřenice (695823); Nalžovské Hory (701521); Otěšín (695840); Ústaleč (774812); Velenovy (777803); Tužice (791326); Plichtice (791300); Zavlekov (791334). 12.12.2024
South Moravian Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00010 Bratčice (609561); Hrušovany u Brna (648833); Kupařovice (677582); Ledce u Židlochovic (679682); Malešovice (690872); Medlov (692590); Němčičky (703052); Odrovice (709077); Smolín (751090); Sobotovice (752142); Cvrčovice u Pohořelic (618152) – pouze část katastrálního území východně od silnice č. 395. 14.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00022 Landkreis Rostock—Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf — Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf 21.12.2024
— Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf
NIEDERSACHSEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00021 Landkreis Aurich3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204.Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Dornum.Landkreis Wittmund3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204.Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Holtgast, Schweindorf und Utarp. 19.12.2024
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00019 Kreis Kleve3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 6.214183 51.822386); betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden—Bedburg-Hau,—Emmerich am Rhein,—Kalkar und—Kleve — Bedburg-Hau, — Emmerich am Rhein, — Kalkar und — Kleve 12.12.2024
— Bedburg-Hau,
— Emmerich am Rhein,
— Kalkar und
— Kleve
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00020 Nordfriesland3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten8.924238/54.583847 Teile der Gemeinden Reußenköge, Bredstedt, Breklum, Struckum und Hattstedtermarsch 15.12.2024
— Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf
— Bedburg-Hau,
— Emmerich am Rhein,
— Kalkar und
— Kleve
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Département Allier (03):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00015 SAINT PLAISIR 5.12.2024
Département Landes (40):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00014FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00016 OristPeyPort-de-LanneSaint-Étienne-d'OrtheSaint-Jean-de-MarsacqSaint-Lon-les-MinesSainte-Marie-de-GosseSaint-Martin-de-Hinx 5.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Veneto region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00015 The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.905288528, E 12.057325217 7.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00016 The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.721413, E 12.368124 9.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00017 The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.4582909563169, E 12.0665245845646 11.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00019 The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.46053010, E 12.05291290 14.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00022 The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.7737, E 12.432319 20.12.2024
Lombardia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00014 The area of the parts of Lombardia contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.187255, E 10.33539 14.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00018 The area of the parts of Lombardia contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.17252, E 10.351436 15.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00021 The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.380577, E 9.450603 20.12.2024
Friuli Venezia Giulia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00020 The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00020) contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.822093, E 13.383938 15.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00051HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00086 Martfű és Tiszaföldvár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.988248 és a 20.287832, valamint a 46.996654 és a 20.253719 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 26.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167 Szászberek, Szolnok, Újszász, Vezseny és Zagyvarékas települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 8.12.2024
Hajdú-Bihar vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105 Kokad és Létavértes települések közigazgatási területének a 47.387114 és a 21.911849, a 47.379120 és a 21.902221, a 47.381722 és a 21.905715, valamint a 47.378793 és a 21.889210 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 28.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104 Folyás és Polgár települések közigazgatási területének a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 1.12.2024
Csongrád-Csanád vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00044-00046HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00048HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00056HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00061-00064HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00076HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00078HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00089HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00091HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00101HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00111HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00114HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00122HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00126HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00128-00129HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00131-00133HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00135HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00137HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00141HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00152HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00159HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00161HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00169-00170HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00173-00176HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00181HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00183HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00185HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189 Ásotthalom, Balástya, Csengele, Forráskút, Kistelek, Ópusztaszer, Öttömös, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Ruzsa és Üllés települések teljes közigazgatási területe. 19.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00190 Szentes közigazgatási területének a 46.648143 és a 20.284182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 19.12.2024
Bács-Kiskun vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00026HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00042 Fülöpszállás, Izsák és Soltszentimre települések közigazgatási területének a 46.771020 és a 19.266569 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 19.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00030HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00033-00041HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00043-00050HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00064HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067-00072HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00074-00085HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00096HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00098-00103HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00122HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00132HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00134-00144HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00147-00154HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00156-00164HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00168-00185HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189 Bácsalmás, Bácsszőlős, Balotaszállás, Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Csikéria, Csólyospálos, Gátér, Harkakötöny, Imrehegy, Jakabszállás, Jánoshalma, Jászszentlászló, Kaskantyú, Kecel, Kelebia, Kiskőrös, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kiskunhalas, Kiskunmajsa, Kisszállás, Kömpöc, Kunbaja, Kunfehértó, Mélykút, Móricgát, Orgovány, Páhi, Pálmonostora, Petőfiszállás, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tataháza, Tázlár, Tompa és Zsana települések teljes közigazgatási területe.Borota és Kéleshalom települések közigazgatási területének a 46.308760 és a 19.291230 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 19.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00123HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00145-00146HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00155HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00186-00187 Borota, Csávoly és Rém települések közigazgatási területének a 46.254915 és a 19.131604, a 46.257157 és a 19.128105, a 46.256205 és a 19.125921, valamint a 46.261845 és a 19.129315 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 19.12.2024
Komárom-Esztergom vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165 Bábolna, Kerékteleki és Tárkány települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 12.12.2024
Baranya vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150 Egyházaskozár, Mekényes és Szárász települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 6.12.2024
Tolna vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150 Györe, Izmény, Kisvejke, Lengyel és Mucsfa települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 6.12.2024
Győr-Moson-Sopron vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165 Bana és Rétalap települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 12.12.2024
Somogy vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00166 Kadarkút, Lábod, Mike és Nagykorpád települések közigazgatási területének a 46.238856 és a 17.538140GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 8.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Provinces Gelderland and Flevoland
NL-HPAI(P)-2024-00003 Those parts of the provinces Gelderland and Flevoland contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long / 5.54 lat 52.27 11.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Niederösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00002AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00003AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00004 Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, St. Peter in der Au, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind. 1.12.2024
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00006 Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St.Peter an der Au, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs (Stadt), Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind. 6.12.2024
Niederösterreich und Oberösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00005 Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Ernsthofen, St. Valentin innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.Bezirk Linz-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Hargelsberg, Kronstorf innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind. 4.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00030PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00033PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00034PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00035PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00036PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00039 W województwie wielkopolskim:1)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo;2)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka;3)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo;4)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo;5)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo. 1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo; 2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka; 3) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo; 4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo; 5) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo. 10.12.2024
1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo;
2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka;
3) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo;
5) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00037 W województwie dolnośląskim:1)w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice;2)w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka;3)w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki. 1) w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice; 2) w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka; 3) w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki. 2.12.2024
1) w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice;
2) w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka;
3) w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00038PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00041 W województwie lubelskim:W powiecie lubartowskim:1.w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary;2.w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy;3.w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice. 1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary; 2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy; 3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice. 12.12.2024
1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary;
2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy;
3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00040 W województwie dolnośląskim:1)w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,2)w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.W województwie lubuskim:1)w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów. 1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, 2) w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce. 1) w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów. 13.12.2024
1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
2) w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.
1) w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów.
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00043 W województwie opolskim:1)w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków. 1) w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków. 11.12.2024
1) w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00042 W województwie śląskim, w powiecie gliwickim:1)w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie;2)w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.W województwie opolskim:1)w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka,Płużnica Wielka 1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie; 2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia. 1) w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka, 16.12.2024
1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie;
2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.
1) w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka,
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00043PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00045 W województwie mazowieckim, w powiecie siedleckim:1)w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie;2)w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.W województwie lubelskim, w powiecie łukowskim:1)w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna;2)w gminie Łuków, miejscowość: Krynka. 1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie; 2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka. 1) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna; 2) w gminie Łuków, miejscowość: Krynka. 20.12.2024
1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie;
2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.
1) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna;
2) w gminie Łuków, miejscowość: Krynka.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00044 W województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:1)w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;2)w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi. 1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; 2) w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi. 19.12.2024
1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;
b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
2) w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi.
1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo;
2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka;
3) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo;
5) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo.
1) w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice;
2) w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka;
3) w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki.
1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary;
2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy;
3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice.
1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
2) w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.
1) w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów.
1) w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków.
1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie;
2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.
1) w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka,
1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie;
2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.
1) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna;
2) w gminie Łuków, miejscowość: Krynka.
1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;
b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;
b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
2) w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi.
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
SK-HPAI(P)-2024-00007 municipality of Dvory nad Žitavou 28.11.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
County: Timiș
RO-HPAI(P)-2024-00003 CUTINA – Com. BETHAUSENBETHAUSEN – Com. BETHAUSENBODO – Com BALINȚ 17.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Yambol region
BG-HPAI(P)-2024-00018 Tundzha municipality:—Bezmer—Hadzhidimitrovo—Botevo—Boyadzhik—Roza—GalabintsiYambol municipality:—Yambol — Bezmer — Hadzhidimitrovo — Botevo — Boyadzhik — Roza — Galabintsi — Yambol 17.12.2024
— Bezmer
— Hadzhidimitrovo
— Botevo
— Boyadzhik
— Roza
— Galabintsi
— Yambol
Tundzha municipality:—Bolyarsko — Bolyarsko 9.12.2024 -17.12.2024
— Bolyarsko
Sliven region
BG-HPAI(P)-2024-00018 Sliven municipality:—Chokoba—Skobelevo—Bozadzhii — Chokoba — Skobelevo — Bozadzhii 17.12.2024
— Chokoba
— Skobelevo
— Bozadzhii
— Bezmer
— Hadzhidimitrovo
— Botevo
— Boyadzhik
— Roza
— Galabintsi
— Yambol
— Bolyarsko
— Chokoba
— Skobelevo
— Bozadzhii
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Pilsen Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00009 Břežany (614891); Budětice (615307); Lipová Lhota (615315); Vlkonice (784028); Číhaň (623571); Plánička (623598); Čímice u Sušice (623911); Dobršín (759635); Hejná (638161); Hnačov (721450); Horažďovická Lhota (770213); Třebomyslice u Horažďovic (770221); Zářečí u Horažďovic (641928); Čejkovy (619027); Čermná (619728); Hrádek u Sušice (647276); Tedražice (647284); Zbynice (619035); Habartice u Obytců (708852); Kvaslice (797901); Boříkovy (608220); Brod (668397); Buršice (668401); Kolinec (668419); Lukoviště (689068); Mlázovy (697281); Ujčín (668443); Vlčkovice u Kolince (668451); Kovčín (671541); Hliněný Újezd (639206); Malé Hydčice (639214); Malý Bor (691399); Týnec u Hliněného Újezdu (639222); Maňovice u Pačejova (717282); Bystré u Klatov (667609); Lešišov (698245); Mokrosuky (698253); Loužná (700657); Milčice (671550); Myslív (700665); Nový Dvůr u Myslíva (700681); Krutěnice (774804); Neprochovy (703524); Těchonice (765457); Žďár u Nalžovských Hor (765465); Nehodiv (700673); Olšany u Kvášňovic (678236); Pačejov (717304); Strážovice u Pačejova (717312); Týřovice u Pačejova (717321); Velešice u Pačejova (717339); Bližanovy (687588); Křížovice u Číhaně (623580); Kvasetice (687596); Lovčice u Klatov (687600); Plánice (721476); Pohoří u Lovčic (687618); Štipoklasy u Lovčic (687626); Vracov u Číhaně (623601); Zdebořice (623610); Bojanovice pod Rabím (737097); Čepice (737101); Rabí (737119); Malá Chmelná (651915); Sušice nad Otavou (759601); Velká Chmelná (651923); Újezd u Plánice (773972); Velké Hydčice (778834); Jetenovice (779521); Skránčice (791318); Vlčnov u Zavlekova (783889); Zborovy (721484); Žichovice (796930) 21. 12. 2024
Černíč u Hradešic (647411); Hradešice (647420); Smrkovec u Hradešic (647438); Letovy (695815); Miřenice (695823); Nalžovské Hory (701521); Otěšín (695840); Ústaleč (774812); Velenovy (777803); Tužice (791326); Plichtice (791300); Zavlekov (791334). 13.12.2024- 21.12. 2024
South Moravian Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00010 Blučina (605808); Branišovice (609374); Dolní Kounice (629286); Hajany (636541); Hlína u Ivančic (639184); Holasice (640778); Ivaň (655708); Budkovice (615595); Jezeřany (659428); Maršovice (659436); Kubšice (676888); Loděnice u Moravského Krumlova (686344); Mělčany u Ivančic (692786); Moravské Bránice (698890); Moravský Krumlov (699128); Nosislav (704865); Nové Bránice (706043); Olbramovice u Moravského Krumlova (709930); Opatovice u Rajhradu (711527); Ořechov (712612); Nová Ves u Pohořelic (705667); Pohořelice nad Jihlavou (724866); Popovice u Rajhradu (725854); Pravlov (733016); Prštice (733954); Přibice (735311); Přísnotice (736261); Rajhrad (738921); Rajhradice (738956); Silůvky (747815); Syrovice (761834); Šumice (764248); Trboušany (768057); Unkovice (774642); Vedrovice (777536); Zábrdovice u Vedrovic (798754); Vlasatice (783307); Vojkovice u Židlochovic (784567); Vranovice nad Svratkou (785512); Žabčice (794121); Želešice (795968); Židlochovice (796701); Cvrčovice u Pohořelic (618152) – pouze část katastrálního území západně od silnice č. 395; Modřice (697931) – pouze část katastrálního území západně od silnice E461 a jižně od silnice č. 15. 23.12.2024
Bratčice (609561); Hrušovany u Brna (648833); Kupařovice (677582); Ledce u Židlochovic (679682); Malešovice (690872); Medlov (692590); Němčičky (703052); Odrovice (709077); Smolín (751090); Sobotovice (752142); Cvrčovice u Pohořelic (618152) – pouze část katastrálního území východně od silnice č. 395. 15.12.2024 – 23.12.2024
Central Bohemian Region:
CZ-HPAI(NON-P)-2024-00044 Nové Benátky (602108); Obodř (602116); Staré Benátky (602124); Borek nad Labem (607517); Brandýs nad Labem (609048); Popovice u Brandýsa nad Labem (609251); Stará Boleslav (609170); Brázdim (609773); Byšice (617172); Čečelice (618772); Dolní Slivno (630152); Slivínko (630161); Dřevčice u Brandýsa nad Labem (632937); Horní Slivno (644111); Hřivno (649171); Jiřice (602078); Káraný (708020); Kochánky (667731); Jiřice u Kostelce nad Labem (661031); Kostelec nad Labem (670171); Rudeč (670189); Košátky (670740); Kojovice (667919); Kropáčova Vrutice (675041); Krpy (675091); Střížovice (758086); Sušno (675059); Křenek (675806); Lázně Toušeň (767859); Liblice (617199); Vysoká Libeň (788066); Benátecká Vrutice (602060); Mratín (700118); Nedomice (717100); Lobkovice (703664); Nový Vestec (708038); Ovčáry u Dřís (717118); Polerady u Prahy (725218); Předměřice nad Jizerou (734284); Sedlec u Benátek nad Jizerou (746665); Otradovice (748366); Skorkov (748382); Sluhy (750751); Sojovice (752169); Stará Lysá (753807); Chrást u Tišic (767344); Kozly u Tišic (767352); Tišice (767361); Tuřice (771856); Přívory (736376); Všetaty (787485); Zápy (609226); Martinov (791008); Záryby (791016); Zdětín u Benátek nad Jizerou (792373); Čelákovice (619159) – severozápadní část katastrálního území u ČOV ohraničená na jihovýchodě spojnicí mezi koncem vodní nádrže Mezi Mosty a řekou Labe; Lysá nad Labem (689505) – severozápadní část katastrálního území ohraničená potokem Mlynařice od řeky Labe k ulici Ke Karlovu a dále ulicí Stržiště, Sojovická, Československé armády a Ke Vrutici; Malý Újezd (691437) – jihovýchodní část katastrálního území na severozápadě ohraničené silnicí vedoucí mezi obcí Kly a částí obce Malý Újezd – Vavřineč; Mělnické Vtelno (692808) – jižní část katastrálního území na severu ohraničené silnicí č. 16 procházející obcí. 28.12.2024
Dřísy (633119); Hlavenec (638960); Konětopy (669059); Kostelní Hlavno (670511); Lhota u Dřís (680931); Mečeříž (692395); Sudovo Hlavno (758892). 20.12.2024 – 28.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
BAYERN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00017 Landkreis Altötting—Gesamtes Gemeindegebiet der Gemeinden Garching an der Alz, Feichten an der Alz, Tyrlaching, Kirchweidach, Halsbach,—Teile der Gemeinden Burgkirchen an der Alz, Kastl, Unterneukirchen und Tüssling, die sich innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10km um den Mittelpunkt mit den Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“befinden, sowie die folgenden Ortsteile:—Gemeinde Burgkirchen an der Alz: Aichelberg, Dorfen, Enhof, Großriedl, Kleinriedl,—Gemeinde Kastl: Stepf, Schönwink,—Gemeinde Unterneukrichen: Maierhof,—Gemeinde Tüssling: Waltenberg.Landkreis Traunstein—Teile der Gemeinden Engelsberg, Tacherting, Kienberg, Palling sowie der Städte Trostberg und Tittmoning die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“ sind.Landkreis Mühldorf a. Inn—Teile der Gemeinden Oberneukirchen, Polling und Taufkirchen, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“sind. — Gesamtes Gemeindegebiet der Gemeinden Garching an der Alz, Feichten an der Alz, Tyrlaching, Kirchweidach, Halsbach, — Teile der Gemeinden Burgkirchen an der Alz, Kastl, Unterneukirchen und Tüssling, die sich innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10km um den Mittelpunkt mit den Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“befinden, sowie die folgenden Ortsteile: — Gemeinde Burgkirchen an der Alz: Aichelberg, Dorfen, Enhof, Großriedl, Kleinriedl, — Gemeinde Kastl: Stepf, Schönwink, — Gemeinde Unterneukrichen: Maierhof, — Gemeinde Tüssling: Waltenberg. — Teile der Gemeinden Engelsberg, Tacherting, Kienberg, Palling sowie der Städte Trostberg und Tittmoning die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“ sind. — Teile der Gemeinden Oberneukirchen, Polling und Taufkirchen, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“sind. 27.11.2024
— Gesamtes Gemeindegebiet der Gemeinden Garching an der Alz, Feichten an der Alz, Tyrlaching, Kirchweidach, Halsbach,
— Teile der Gemeinden Burgkirchen an der Alz, Kastl, Unterneukirchen und Tüssling, die sich innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10km um den Mittelpunkt mit den Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“befinden, sowie die folgenden Ortsteile:
— Gemeinde Burgkirchen an der Alz: Aichelberg, Dorfen, Enhof, Großriedl, Kleinriedl,
— Gemeinde Kastl: Stepf, Schönwink,
— Gemeinde Unterneukrichen: Maierhof,
— Gemeinde Tüssling: Waltenberg.
— Teile der Gemeinden Engelsberg, Tacherting, Kienberg, Palling sowie der Städte Trostberg und Tittmoning die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“ sind.
— Teile der Gemeinden Oberneukirchen, Polling und Taufkirchen, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“sind.
Landkreis Altötting—Gemeinde Garching an der Alz:Beginnend an der Lankreisgrenze das Gebiet östlich der AÖ9, dann südlich der ST 2355 bis zur Abzweigung nach Am Winklhart, dann östlich einer Linie die Ortsteile Am Winklhart, Egg und Winklhart einschließend, dann das bebaute Kerngebiet Garching an der Alz südlich des Waldgebietes „Garchinger Hart“, bis zur Abzweigung B299 und Frank-Caro-Straße, dann westlich einer Linie die Alz überquerend bis zur Gemeindegrenze bei Neukirchen a. d. Alz, die Ortsteile Oberlindach und Wimm einschließend. Alle restlichen Gemeindebereiche innerhalb des beschriebenen Bereichs,—Gemeinde Kirchweidach:Alle Ortsteile im Gebiet westlich der AÖ25, ab Neukirchen an der Alz und nördlich der Bahnstrecke Garching-Kirchweidach.—Gemeinde Feichten an der Alz:—Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23Landkreis Traunstein—Gemeinde Tacherting:Ortsteile Straß, Aichmühle bei Tacherting, Schermühle,—Gemeinde Engelsberg:Ortsteile Dunstenstein, Inhausen bei Engelsberg, Straß bei Offenham, Vogleck, Gießmühle, Offenham, Pächmann, Wiesmühl a.d. Alz, Pfarrhof, Wölklham — Gemeinde Garching an der Alz:Beginnend an der Lankreisgrenze das Gebiet östlich der AÖ9, dann südlich der ST 2355 bis zur Abzweigung nach Am Winklhart, dann östlich einer Linie die Ortsteile Am Winklhart, Egg und Winklhart einschließend, dann das bebaute Kerngebiet Garching an der Alz südlich des Waldgebietes „Garchinger Hart“, bis zur Abzweigung B299 und Frank-Caro-Straße, dann westlich einer Linie die Alz überquerend bis zur Gemeindegrenze bei Neukirchen a. d. Alz, die Ortsteile Oberlindach und Wimm einschließend. Alle restlichen Gemeindebereiche innerhalb des beschriebenen Bereichs, — Gemeinde Kirchweidach:Alle Ortsteile im Gebiet westlich der AÖ25, ab Neukirchen an der Alz und nördlich der Bahnstrecke Garching-Kirchweidach. — Gemeinde Feichten an der Alz:—Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23 — Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23 — Gemeinde Tacherting:Ortsteile Straß, Aichmühle bei Tacherting, Schermühle, — Gemeinde Engelsberg:Ortsteile Dunstenstein, Inhausen bei Engelsberg, Straß bei Offenham, Vogleck, Gießmühle, Offenham, Pächmann, Wiesmühl a.d. Alz, Pfarrhof, Wölklham 19.11.2024 – 27.11.2024
— Gemeinde Garching an der Alz:Beginnend an der Lankreisgrenze das Gebiet östlich der AÖ9, dann südlich der ST 2355 bis zur Abzweigung nach Am Winklhart, dann östlich einer Linie die Ortsteile Am Winklhart, Egg und Winklhart einschließend, dann das bebaute Kerngebiet Garching an der Alz südlich des Waldgebietes „Garchinger Hart“, bis zur Abzweigung B299 und Frank-Caro-Straße, dann westlich einer Linie die Alz überquerend bis zur Gemeindegrenze bei Neukirchen a. d. Alz, die Ortsteile Oberlindach und Wimm einschließend. Alle restlichen Gemeindebereiche innerhalb des beschriebenen Bereichs,
— Gemeinde Kirchweidach:Alle Ortsteile im Gebiet westlich der AÖ25, ab Neukirchen an der Alz und nördlich der Bahnstrecke Garching-Kirchweidach.
— Gemeinde Feichten an der Alz:—Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23 — Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23
— Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23
— Gemeinde Tacherting:Ortsteile Straß, Aichmühle bei Tacherting, Schermühle,
— Gemeinde Engelsberg:Ortsteile Dunstenstein, Inhausen bei Engelsberg, Straß bei Offenham, Vogleck, Gießmühle, Offenham, Pächmann, Wiesmühl a.d. Alz, Pfarrhof, Wölklham
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00018 Landkreis Roth—Gemeinde Roth: Ortsteile Bernlohe, Unterheckenhofen, Untersteinbach a. d. Haide, Barnsdorf, Rothaurach,—Stadtgebiet Roth: Barnsdorfer Weg, Erlenweg, Unterer Weinbergweg, Weinbergweg, Westring, Röntgenstraße, Wattstraße, Dieselstraße, Ohmstraße, Boschweg, Franklinweg, Siemensstraße, Pinzigweg, Edisonweg, Abenberger Straße,—Gemeinde Büchenbach: Ortsteile Asbach, Aurau, Hebresmühle, Breitenlohe, Gauchsdorf, Neumühle, Götzenreuth, Schopfhof, Kühedorf, Ungerthal, Lohmühle,—Gemeinde Abenberg: Ortsteile Pflugsmühle, Wassermungenau, Ebersbach, Kapsdorf, Bechhofen, Kleinabenberg,—Gemeinde Kammerstein: Ortsteile Haag – nördlich der B 466, Schattenhof, Albersreuth, Günzersreuth, Rudelsdorf, Poppenreuth, Neppersreuth, Barthelmesaurach, Hasenmühle, Mildach, Haubenhof,—Gemeinde Spalt: Ortsteile Untererlbach, Theilenberg, Wernfels, Stiegelmühle, Höfstetten, Hohenrad, Nagelhof, Trautenfurt, Schnittling, Fünfbronn, Keilberg, Stockheim, Hagsbronn, Enderndorf, Ottmannsberg, Heiligenblut, Kaltenbrunn, Großweingarten, Egelmühle, Wasserzell, Straßenhaus, Steinfurt, Hügelmühle, Mosbach,—Gemeinde Georgensgmünd: Ortsteile Wernsbach, Petersgmünd, Friedrichsgmünd, Hauslach, Oberheckenhofen, Hämmerleinsmühle, Rittersbach, Mäbenberg, Weinmannsdorf,—Gemeinde Röttenbach: Ortsteile Unterbreitenlohe, Oberbreitenlohe, Mühlstetten, Niedermauk.Landkreis Ansbach—Stadt Windsbach:Das gesamte Stadgebiet Windsbach, sowie die Ortsteile Veitsaurach, Bertholdsdorf, Buckenmühle, Suddersdorf, Kettersbach, Brunn, Leipersloh, Moosbach, Retzendorf, Elpersdorf b. Windsbach, Schwalbenmühle, Wolfsau, Hergersbach, Hölzleinsmühle, Untereschenbach, Kugelmühle Winkelhaid und Thonhof, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind,—Gemeinde Mitteleschenbach:Das Gewerbegebiet “Am Lohbuck”, sowie die Ortsteile Gersbach, Bremenhof, Käshof und Haselmühle, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind.Landkreis Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen—Teile der Gemeinden Pleinfeld, Pfofeld, Absberg und Haundorf, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 49° 12`55.9168“ N, 10° 56`37.71“O sind,—Gemeinde Pleinfeld: Ortsteile Stirn, Heinzenmühle, Hohenweiler, Erlingsdorf, Allmannsdorf, Birklein,—Gemeinde Absberg: Ortsteile Absberg, Griesbuck, Angerberg, Fallhaus, Schellhof, Igelsbach, Kalbensteinberg,—Gemeinde Haundorf: Ortsteile Obererlbach bei Mitteleschenbach, Thierhof, Gutzenmühle bei Kalbensteinberg, Neuhof bei Kalbensteinberg. — Gemeinde Roth: Ortsteile Bernlohe, Unterheckenhofen, Untersteinbach a. d. Haide, Barnsdorf, Rothaurach, — Stadtgebiet Roth: Barnsdorfer Weg, Erlenweg, Unterer Weinbergweg, Weinbergweg, Westring, Röntgenstraße, Wattstraße, Dieselstraße, Ohmstraße, Boschweg, Franklinweg, Siemensstraße, Pinzigweg, Edisonweg, Abenberger Straße, — Gemeinde Büchenbach: Ortsteile Asbach, Aurau, Hebresmühle, Breitenlohe, Gauchsdorf, Neumühle, Götzenreuth, Schopfhof, Kühedorf, Ungerthal, Lohmühle, — Gemeinde Abenberg: Ortsteile Pflugsmühle, Wassermungenau, Ebersbach, Kapsdorf, Bechhofen, Kleinabenberg, — Gemeinde Kammerstein: Ortsteile Haag – nördlich der B 466, Schattenhof, Albersreuth, Günzersreuth, Rudelsdorf, Poppenreuth, Neppersreuth, Barthelmesaurach, Hasenmühle, Mildach, Haubenhof, — Gemeinde Spalt: Ortsteile Untererlbach, Theilenberg, Wernfels, Stiegelmühle, Höfstetten, Hohenrad, Nagelhof, Trautenfurt, Schnittling, Fünfbronn, Keilberg, Stockheim, Hagsbronn, Enderndorf, Ottmannsberg, Heiligenblut, Kaltenbrunn, Großweingarten, Egelmühle, Wasserzell, Straßenhaus, Steinfurt, Hügelmühle, Mosbach, — Gemeinde Georgensgmünd: Ortsteile Wernsbach, Petersgmünd, Friedrichsgmünd, Hauslach, Oberheckenhofen, Hämmerleinsmühle, Rittersbach, Mäbenberg, Weinmannsdorf, — Gemeinde Röttenbach: Ortsteile Unterbreitenlohe, Oberbreitenlohe, Mühlstetten, Niedermauk. — Stadt Windsbach:Das gesamte Stadgebiet Windsbach, sowie die Ortsteile Veitsaurach, Bertholdsdorf, Buckenmühle, Suddersdorf, Kettersbach, Brunn, Leipersloh, Moosbach, Retzendorf, Elpersdorf b. Windsbach, Schwalbenmühle, Wolfsau, Hergersbach, Hölzleinsmühle, Untereschenbach, Kugelmühle Winkelhaid und Thonhof, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind, — Gemeinde Mitteleschenbach:Das Gewerbegebiet “Am Lohbuck”, sowie die Ortsteile Gersbach, Bremenhof, Käshof und Haselmühle, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind. — Teile der Gemeinden Pleinfeld, Pfofeld, Absberg und Haundorf, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 49° 12`55.9168“ N, 10° 56`37.71“O sind, — Gemeinde Pleinfeld: Ortsteile Stirn, Heinzenmühle, Hohenweiler, Erlingsdorf, Allmannsdorf, Birklein, — Gemeinde Absberg: Ortsteile Absberg, Griesbuck, Angerberg, Fallhaus, Schellhof, Igelsbach, Kalbensteinberg, — Gemeinde Haundorf: Ortsteile Obererlbach bei Mitteleschenbach, Thierhof, Gutzenmühle bei Kalbensteinberg, Neuhof bei Kalbensteinberg. 2.12.2024
— Gemeinde Roth: Ortsteile Bernlohe, Unterheckenhofen, Untersteinbach a. d. Haide, Barnsdorf, Rothaurach,
— Stadtgebiet Roth: Barnsdorfer Weg, Erlenweg, Unterer Weinbergweg, Weinbergweg, Westring, Röntgenstraße, Wattstraße, Dieselstraße, Ohmstraße, Boschweg, Franklinweg, Siemensstraße, Pinzigweg, Edisonweg, Abenberger Straße,
— Gemeinde Büchenbach: Ortsteile Asbach, Aurau, Hebresmühle, Breitenlohe, Gauchsdorf, Neumühle, Götzenreuth, Schopfhof, Kühedorf, Ungerthal, Lohmühle,
— Gemeinde Abenberg: Ortsteile Pflugsmühle, Wassermungenau, Ebersbach, Kapsdorf, Bechhofen, Kleinabenberg,
— Gemeinde Kammerstein: Ortsteile Haag – nördlich der B 466, Schattenhof, Albersreuth, Günzersreuth, Rudelsdorf, Poppenreuth, Neppersreuth, Barthelmesaurach, Hasenmühle, Mildach, Haubenhof,
— Gemeinde Spalt: Ortsteile Untererlbach, Theilenberg, Wernfels, Stiegelmühle, Höfstetten, Hohenrad, Nagelhof, Trautenfurt, Schnittling, Fünfbronn, Keilberg, Stockheim, Hagsbronn, Enderndorf, Ottmannsberg, Heiligenblut, Kaltenbrunn, Großweingarten, Egelmühle, Wasserzell, Straßenhaus, Steinfurt, Hügelmühle, Mosbach,
— Gemeinde Georgensgmünd: Ortsteile Wernsbach, Petersgmünd, Friedrichsgmünd, Hauslach, Oberheckenhofen, Hämmerleinsmühle, Rittersbach, Mäbenberg, Weinmannsdorf,
— Gemeinde Röttenbach: Ortsteile Unterbreitenlohe, Oberbreitenlohe, Mühlstetten, Niedermauk.
— Stadt Windsbach:Das gesamte Stadgebiet Windsbach, sowie die Ortsteile Veitsaurach, Bertholdsdorf, Buckenmühle, Suddersdorf, Kettersbach, Brunn, Leipersloh, Moosbach, Retzendorf, Elpersdorf b. Windsbach, Schwalbenmühle, Wolfsau, Hergersbach, Hölzleinsmühle, Untereschenbach, Kugelmühle Winkelhaid und Thonhof, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind,
— Gemeinde Mitteleschenbach:Das Gewerbegebiet “Am Lohbuck”, sowie die Ortsteile Gersbach, Bremenhof, Käshof und Haselmühle, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind.
— Teile der Gemeinden Pleinfeld, Pfofeld, Absberg und Haundorf, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 49° 12`55.9168“ N, 10° 56`37.71“O sind,
— Gemeinde Pleinfeld: Ortsteile Stirn, Heinzenmühle, Hohenweiler, Erlingsdorf, Allmannsdorf, Birklein,
— Gemeinde Absberg: Ortsteile Absberg, Griesbuck, Angerberg, Fallhaus, Schellhof, Igelsbach, Kalbensteinberg,
— Gemeinde Haundorf: Ortsteile Obererlbach bei Mitteleschenbach, Thierhof, Gutzenmühle bei Kalbensteinberg, Neuhof bei Kalbensteinberg.
Landkreis Roth—Gemeinde Abenberg:Südliches Stadtgebiet Abenberg, Grenze verläuft von Windsbacher Straße, Marktplatz, Steinweg und Mühlweg, Küchelbach, Marienburg, Kloster, Schweinau,Ortsteile Dürrenmungenau, Dürrenmungenau-Fischhau, Dürrenmungenau-Pippenhof, Dürrenmungenau-Weihermühle, Beerbach, Obersteinbach ob Gmünd, Untersteinbach ob Gmünd,—Gemeinde Spalt:Ortsteile Engelhof, Güsseldorf, Massendorf — Gemeinde Abenberg:Südliches Stadtgebiet Abenberg, Grenze verläuft von Windsbacher Straße, Marktplatz, Steinweg und Mühlweg, Küchelbach, Marienburg, Kloster, Schweinau,Ortsteile Dürrenmungenau, Dürrenmungenau-Fischhau, Dürrenmungenau-Pippenhof, Dürrenmungenau-Weihermühle, Beerbach, Obersteinbach ob Gmünd, Untersteinbach ob Gmünd, — Gemeinde Spalt:Ortsteile Engelhof, Güsseldorf, Massendorf 22.11.2024 – 2.12.2024
— Gemeinde Abenberg:Südliches Stadtgebiet Abenberg, Grenze verläuft von Windsbacher Straße, Marktplatz, Steinweg und Mühlweg, Küchelbach, Marienburg, Kloster, Schweinau,Ortsteile Dürrenmungenau, Dürrenmungenau-Fischhau, Dürrenmungenau-Pippenhof, Dürrenmungenau-Weihermühle, Beerbach, Obersteinbach ob Gmünd, Untersteinbach ob Gmünd,
— Gemeinde Spalt:Ortsteile Engelhof, Güsseldorf, Massendorf
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00022 Landkreis Rostock—Amt TessinGemeinde Cammin mit den Ortsteilen Prangendorf, Weitendorf und WohrenstorfGemeinde Gnewitz mit dem Ortsteil Neu BarkvierenGemeinde Grammow mit den Ortseilen Alt Strassow, Neu Strassow, Grammow, Neuhof und RecknitzbergGemeinde Nustrow mit dem Ortsteil NustrowGemeinde Selpin mit den Ortsteilen Vogelsang, Reddersdorf, Bärenberg, Woltow, Selpin und DrüsewitzGemeinde Stubbendorf mit den Ortsteilen Stubbendorf und EhmkendorfStadt Tessin und den Ortsteilen Helmstorf, Vilz und Klein TessinGemeinde Thelkow mit den Ortsteilen Sophienhof, Thelkow, Kowalz, Liepen und Starkow—Gemeinde Sanitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften:Sanitz, Niekrenz, Groß Lüsewitz, Oberhof, Vietow, Wehnendorf, Ausbau Niekrenz, Neu Wendorf, Horst, Teutendorf, Klein Wehnendorf, Klein Freienholz, Wendorf, Reppelin, Wendfeld, Groß Freienholz, Gubkow und Hohen Gubkow—Amt GnoienGemeinde Behren Lübchin mit der Ortschaft DuckwitzGemeinde Walkendorf mit den Ortschaften Repnitz und BasseLandkreis Vorpommern-Rügen—Gemeinde Dettmannsdorf—Gemeinde Lindholz mit dem Ortsteil Schabow—Stadt Marlow mit den Ortsteilen Dänschenburg, Carlsruhe, Neu Steinhorst, Alt Steinhorst, Brunstorf, Fahrenhaupt, Schulenberg, Kneese — Amt TessinGemeinde Cammin mit den Ortsteilen Prangendorf, Weitendorf und WohrenstorfGemeinde Gnewitz mit dem Ortsteil Neu BarkvierenGemeinde Grammow mit den Ortseilen Alt Strassow, Neu Strassow, Grammow, Neuhof und RecknitzbergGemeinde Nustrow mit dem Ortsteil NustrowGemeinde Selpin mit den Ortsteilen Vogelsang, Reddersdorf, Bärenberg, Woltow, Selpin und DrüsewitzGemeinde Stubbendorf mit den Ortsteilen Stubbendorf und EhmkendorfStadt Tessin und den Ortsteilen Helmstorf, Vilz und Klein TessinGemeinde Thelkow mit den Ortsteilen Sophienhof, Thelkow, Kowalz, Liepen und Starkow — Gemeinde Sanitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften:Sanitz, Niekrenz, Groß Lüsewitz, Oberhof, Vietow, Wehnendorf, Ausbau Niekrenz, Neu Wendorf, Horst, Teutendorf, Klein Wehnendorf, Klein Freienholz, Wendorf, Reppelin, Wendfeld, Groß Freienholz, Gubkow und Hohen Gubkow — Amt GnoienGemeinde Behren Lübchin mit der Ortschaft DuckwitzGemeinde Walkendorf mit den Ortschaften Repnitz und Basse — Gemeinde Dettmannsdorf — Gemeinde Lindholz mit dem Ortsteil Schabow — Stadt Marlow mit den Ortsteilen Dänschenburg, Carlsruhe, Neu Steinhorst, Alt Steinhorst, Brunstorf, Fahrenhaupt, Schulenberg, Kneese 30.12.2024
— Amt TessinGemeinde Cammin mit den Ortsteilen Prangendorf, Weitendorf und WohrenstorfGemeinde Gnewitz mit dem Ortsteil Neu BarkvierenGemeinde Grammow mit den Ortseilen Alt Strassow, Neu Strassow, Grammow, Neuhof und RecknitzbergGemeinde Nustrow mit dem Ortsteil NustrowGemeinde Selpin mit den Ortsteilen Vogelsang, Reddersdorf, Bärenberg, Woltow, Selpin und DrüsewitzGemeinde Stubbendorf mit den Ortsteilen Stubbendorf und EhmkendorfStadt Tessin und den Ortsteilen Helmstorf, Vilz und Klein TessinGemeinde Thelkow mit den Ortsteilen Sophienhof, Thelkow, Kowalz, Liepen und Starkow
— Gemeinde Sanitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften:Sanitz, Niekrenz, Groß Lüsewitz, Oberhof, Vietow, Wehnendorf, Ausbau Niekrenz, Neu Wendorf, Horst, Teutendorf, Klein Wehnendorf, Klein Freienholz, Wendorf, Reppelin, Wendfeld, Groß Freienholz, Gubkow und Hohen Gubkow
— Amt GnoienGemeinde Behren Lübchin mit der Ortschaft DuckwitzGemeinde Walkendorf mit den Ortschaften Repnitz und Basse
— Gemeinde Dettmannsdorf
— Gemeinde Lindholz mit dem Ortsteil Schabow
— Stadt Marlow mit den Ortsteilen Dänschenburg, Carlsruhe, Neu Steinhorst, Alt Steinhorst, Brunstorf, Fahrenhaupt, Schulenberg, Kneese
Landkreis Rostock—Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf — Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf 22.12.2024-30.12.2024
— Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf
NIEDERSACHSEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00021 Landkreis Aurich10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204.Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Baltrum, Dornum und Großheide.Landkreis Wittmund10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204.Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Blomberg, Dunum, Esens, Eversmeerr, Holtgast, Langeoog, Moorweg, Neuharlingersiel, Nenndorf, Neuschoo, Ochtersum, Schweindorf, Stedesdorf, Utarp und Westerholt. 28.12.2024
Landkreis Aurich3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204.Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Dornum.Landkreis Wittmund3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204.Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Holtgast, Schweindorf und Utarp. 19.12.2024 – 28.12.2024
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00019 Kreis Kleve10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 6.214183 51.822386); betroffen sind Teile der folgenden Gemeinden:—Bedburg-Hau (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),—Emmerich am Rhein (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),—Goch,—Kalkar (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),—Kleve (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),—Kranenburg und—Rees — Bedburg-Hau (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend), — Emmerich am Rhein (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend), — Goch, — Kalkar (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend), — Kleve (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend), — Kranenburg und — Rees 21.12.2024
— Bedburg-Hau (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Emmerich am Rhein (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Goch,
— Kalkar (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Kleve (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Kranenburg und
— Rees
Kreis Kleve3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 6.214183 51.822386); betroffen sind Teile der folgenden Gemeinden:—Bedburg-Hau,—Emmerich am Rhein,—Kalkar und—Kleve — Bedburg-Hau, — Emmerich am Rhein, — Kalkar und — Kleve 13.12.2024 – 21.12.2024
— Bedburg-Hau,
— Emmerich am Rhein,
— Kalkar und
— Kleve
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00020 Nordfriesland10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten8.924238/54.583847. Die gesamte Gemeinde Sönnebüll, Almdorf sowie Teile der Gemeinden Reußenköge, Bredstedt, Breklum, Struckum, Hattstedtermarsch, Elisabeth-Sophien-Koog, Nordstrand, Husum, Wobbenbüll, Horstedt, Hattstedt, Arlewatt, Ahrenshöft, Bohmstedt, Drelsdorf, Vollstedt, Högel, Olderup, Bordelum, Langenhorn, Ockholm 24.12.2024
Nordfriesland3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten8.924238/54.583847 Teile der Gemeinden Reußenköge, Bredstedt, Breklum, Struckum und Hattstedtermarsch 16.12.2024 – 24.12.2024
— Gesamtes Gemeindegebiet der Gemeinden Garching an der Alz, Feichten an der Alz, Tyrlaching, Kirchweidach, Halsbach,
— Teile der Gemeinden Burgkirchen an der Alz, Kastl, Unterneukirchen und Tüssling, die sich innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10km um den Mittelpunkt mit den Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“befinden, sowie die folgenden Ortsteile:
— Gemeinde Burgkirchen an der Alz: Aichelberg, Dorfen, Enhof, Großriedl, Kleinriedl,
— Gemeinde Kastl: Stepf, Schönwink,
— Gemeinde Unterneukrichen: Maierhof,
— Gemeinde Tüssling: Waltenberg.
— Teile der Gemeinden Engelsberg, Tacherting, Kienberg, Palling sowie der Städte Trostberg und Tittmoning die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“ sind.
— Teile der Gemeinden Oberneukirchen, Polling und Taufkirchen, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“sind.
— Gemeinde Garching an der Alz:Beginnend an der Lankreisgrenze das Gebiet östlich der AÖ9, dann südlich der ST 2355 bis zur Abzweigung nach Am Winklhart, dann östlich einer Linie die Ortsteile Am Winklhart, Egg und Winklhart einschließend, dann das bebaute Kerngebiet Garching an der Alz südlich des Waldgebietes „Garchinger Hart“, bis zur Abzweigung B299 und Frank-Caro-Straße, dann westlich einer Linie die Alz überquerend bis zur Gemeindegrenze bei Neukirchen a. d. Alz, die Ortsteile Oberlindach und Wimm einschließend. Alle restlichen Gemeindebereiche innerhalb des beschriebenen Bereichs,
— Gemeinde Kirchweidach:Alle Ortsteile im Gebiet westlich der AÖ25, ab Neukirchen an der Alz und nördlich der Bahnstrecke Garching-Kirchweidach.
— Gemeinde Feichten an der Alz:—Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23 — Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23
— Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23
— Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23
— Gemeinde Tacherting:Ortsteile Straß, Aichmühle bei Tacherting, Schermühle,
— Gemeinde Engelsberg:Ortsteile Dunstenstein, Inhausen bei Engelsberg, Straß bei Offenham, Vogleck, Gießmühle, Offenham, Pächmann, Wiesmühl a.d. Alz, Pfarrhof, Wölklham
— Gemeinde Roth: Ortsteile Bernlohe, Unterheckenhofen, Untersteinbach a. d. Haide, Barnsdorf, Rothaurach,
— Stadtgebiet Roth: Barnsdorfer Weg, Erlenweg, Unterer Weinbergweg, Weinbergweg, Westring, Röntgenstraße, Wattstraße, Dieselstraße, Ohmstraße, Boschweg, Franklinweg, Siemensstraße, Pinzigweg, Edisonweg, Abenberger Straße,
— Gemeinde Büchenbach: Ortsteile Asbach, Aurau, Hebresmühle, Breitenlohe, Gauchsdorf, Neumühle, Götzenreuth, Schopfhof, Kühedorf, Ungerthal, Lohmühle,
— Gemeinde Abenberg: Ortsteile Pflugsmühle, Wassermungenau, Ebersbach, Kapsdorf, Bechhofen, Kleinabenberg,
— Gemeinde Kammerstein: Ortsteile Haag – nördlich der B 466, Schattenhof, Albersreuth, Günzersreuth, Rudelsdorf, Poppenreuth, Neppersreuth, Barthelmesaurach, Hasenmühle, Mildach, Haubenhof,
— Gemeinde Spalt: Ortsteile Untererlbach, Theilenberg, Wernfels, Stiegelmühle, Höfstetten, Hohenrad, Nagelhof, Trautenfurt, Schnittling, Fünfbronn, Keilberg, Stockheim, Hagsbronn, Enderndorf, Ottmannsberg, Heiligenblut, Kaltenbrunn, Großweingarten, Egelmühle, Wasserzell, Straßenhaus, Steinfurt, Hügelmühle, Mosbach,
— Gemeinde Georgensgmünd: Ortsteile Wernsbach, Petersgmünd, Friedrichsgmünd, Hauslach, Oberheckenhofen, Hämmerleinsmühle, Rittersbach, Mäbenberg, Weinmannsdorf,
— Gemeinde Röttenbach: Ortsteile Unterbreitenlohe, Oberbreitenlohe, Mühlstetten, Niedermauk.
— Stadt Windsbach:Das gesamte Stadgebiet Windsbach, sowie die Ortsteile Veitsaurach, Bertholdsdorf, Buckenmühle, Suddersdorf, Kettersbach, Brunn, Leipersloh, Moosbach, Retzendorf, Elpersdorf b. Windsbach, Schwalbenmühle, Wolfsau, Hergersbach, Hölzleinsmühle, Untereschenbach, Kugelmühle Winkelhaid und Thonhof, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind,
— Gemeinde Mitteleschenbach:Das Gewerbegebiet “Am Lohbuck”, sowie die Ortsteile Gersbach, Bremenhof, Käshof und Haselmühle, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56'37.71" N49°12'55.91" sind.
— Teile der Gemeinden Pleinfeld, Pfofeld, Absberg und Haundorf, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 49° 12`55.9168“ N, 10° 56`37.71“O sind,
— Gemeinde Pleinfeld: Ortsteile Stirn, Heinzenmühle, Hohenweiler, Erlingsdorf, Allmannsdorf, Birklein,
— Gemeinde Absberg: Ortsteile Absberg, Griesbuck, Angerberg, Fallhaus, Schellhof, Igelsbach, Kalbensteinberg,
— Gemeinde Haundorf: Ortsteile Obererlbach bei Mitteleschenbach, Thierhof, Gutzenmühle bei Kalbensteinberg, Neuhof bei Kalbensteinberg.
— Gemeinde Abenberg:Südliches Stadtgebiet Abenberg, Grenze verläuft von Windsbacher Straße, Marktplatz, Steinweg und Mühlweg, Küchelbach, Marienburg, Kloster, Schweinau,Ortsteile Dürrenmungenau, Dürrenmungenau-Fischhau, Dürrenmungenau-Pippenhof, Dürrenmungenau-Weihermühle, Beerbach, Obersteinbach ob Gmünd, Untersteinbach ob Gmünd,
— Gemeinde Spalt:Ortsteile Engelhof, Güsseldorf, Massendorf
— Amt TessinGemeinde Cammin mit den Ortsteilen Prangendorf, Weitendorf und WohrenstorfGemeinde Gnewitz mit dem Ortsteil Neu BarkvierenGemeinde Grammow mit den Ortseilen Alt Strassow, Neu Strassow, Grammow, Neuhof und RecknitzbergGemeinde Nustrow mit dem Ortsteil NustrowGemeinde Selpin mit den Ortsteilen Vogelsang, Reddersdorf, Bärenberg, Woltow, Selpin und DrüsewitzGemeinde Stubbendorf mit den Ortsteilen Stubbendorf und EhmkendorfStadt Tessin und den Ortsteilen Helmstorf, Vilz und Klein TessinGemeinde Thelkow mit den Ortsteilen Sophienhof, Thelkow, Kowalz, Liepen und Starkow
— Gemeinde Sanitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften:Sanitz, Niekrenz, Groß Lüsewitz, Oberhof, Vietow, Wehnendorf, Ausbau Niekrenz, Neu Wendorf, Horst, Teutendorf, Klein Wehnendorf, Klein Freienholz, Wendorf, Reppelin, Wendfeld, Groß Freienholz, Gubkow und Hohen Gubkow
— Amt GnoienGemeinde Behren Lübchin mit der Ortschaft DuckwitzGemeinde Walkendorf mit den Ortschaften Repnitz und Basse
— Gemeinde Dettmannsdorf
— Gemeinde Lindholz mit dem Ortsteil Schabow
— Stadt Marlow mit den Ortsteilen Dänschenburg, Carlsruhe, Neu Steinhorst, Alt Steinhorst, Brunstorf, Fahrenhaupt, Schulenberg, Kneese
— Amt TessinStadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger MühleGemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und BarkvierenGemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf
— Bedburg-Hau (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Emmerich am Rhein (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Goch,
— Kalkar (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Kleve (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
— Kranenburg und
— Rees
— Bedburg-Hau,
— Emmerich am Rhein,
— Kalkar und
— Kleve
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Département Allier (03):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-000015 BOURBON L'ARCHANBMAULTCERILLYCOULEUVREFRANCHESSELE VILHAINLIMOISELURCY-LEVISPOUZY MESANGYSAINT AUBIN LE MONIALTHENEUILLEYGRANDE 14.12.2024
SAINT PLAISIR 6.12.2024 – 14.12.2024
Département Landes (40):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00014FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00016 BélusBiarrotteBiaudosCagnotteCauneilleHastinguesHeugasJosseOeyregaveOrtheviellePeyrehoradeRivière-Saas-et-GourbySaint-André-de-SeignanxSaint-Geours-de-MaremneSaint-Laurent-de-GosseSaint-Vincent-de-TyrosseSaubriguesSaubusseSiestTercis-les-Bains 14.12.2024
OristPeyPort-de-LanneSaint-Étienne-d'OrtheSaint-Jean-de-MarsacqSaint-Lon-les-MinesSainte-Marie-de-GosseSaint-Martin-de-Hinx 6.12.2024 – 14.12.2024
Département Morbihan (56):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00013 —BIGNAN: Commune entière—BULÉON: Commune entière—CREDIN: Zone de la commune ainsi délimitée : sud d’un axe reliant le lieu-dit Keraudran au lieu dit l’Ecu en passant par le centre de Crédin—KERFOURN: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune délimitée—Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg—A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner—LANTILLAC: Commune entière—LOCMINÉ: Commune entière—MOREAC: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune qui n’est pas en ZP—MOUSTOIR AC: Zone nord de la commune ainsi délimitée : nord du Ponctuel—ÉVELLYS: Partie de la commune qui n'est pas en ZP—GUENIN: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée par la D768 jusqu’à Talnay puis par la route passant par Bedivy, Kervihan, Kerauffret, Saint-Eno jusqu’à la N24Puis délimitée au sud par la D724 jusqu’à la Haie Basse et la Villeneuve—LA CHAPELLE-NEUVE: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la route passant par La Villeneuve jusqu’à Kerzo puis par Le Gentil Coq, Keriven puis par la D117—NOYAL-PONTIVY: Zone au sud du ruisseau de Mengoët—PLEUGRIFFET: Commune entière—PLUMÉLIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée Le Blavet jusqu’à la D1 puis par la route passant par Kermaniec, Kerhaluy-Guennec jusqu’à Saint Hilaire puis par la route passant par Lann Brugo jusqu’à la D768—PLUMELIN: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la D117 puis par la Rue du Stade—RADENAC: Commune entière—RÉGUINY: Commune entière hormis la zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard—SAINT-ALLOUESTRE: Commune entière—SAINT-THURIAU: Commune entière — BIGNAN: Commune entière — BULÉON: Commune entière — CREDIN: Zone de la commune ainsi délimitée : sud d’un axe reliant le lieu-dit Keraudran au lieu dit l’Ecu en passant par le centre de Crédin — KERFOURN: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune délimitée—Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg—A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner — Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg — A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner — LANTILLAC: Commune entière — LOCMINÉ: Commune entière — MOREAC: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune qui n’est pas en ZP — MOUSTOIR AC: Zone nord de la commune ainsi délimitée : nord du Ponctuel — ÉVELLYS: Partie de la commune qui n'est pas en ZP — GUENIN: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée par la D768 jusqu’à Talnay puis par la route passant par Bedivy, Kervihan, Kerauffret, Saint-Eno jusqu’à la N24Puis délimitée au sud par la D724 jusqu’à la Haie Basse et la Villeneuve — LA CHAPELLE-NEUVE: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la route passant par La Villeneuve jusqu’à Kerzo puis par Le Gentil Coq, Keriven puis par la D117 — NOYAL-PONTIVY: Zone au sud du ruisseau de Mengoët — PLEUGRIFFET: Commune entière — PLUMÉLIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée Le Blavet jusqu’à la D1 puis par la route passant par Kermaniec, Kerhaluy-Guennec jusqu’à Saint Hilaire puis par la route passant par Lann Brugo jusqu’à la D768 — PLUMELIN: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la D117 puis par la Rue du Stade — RADENAC: Commune entière — RÉGUINY: Commune entière hormis la zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard — SAINT-ALLOUESTRE: Commune entière — SAINT-THURIAU: Commune entière 2.12.2024
— BIGNAN: Commune entière
— BULÉON: Commune entière
— CREDIN: Zone de la commune ainsi délimitée : sud d’un axe reliant le lieu-dit Keraudran au lieu dit l’Ecu en passant par le centre de Crédin
— KERFOURN: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune délimitée—Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg—A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner — Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg — A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner
— Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg
— A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner
— LANTILLAC: Commune entière
— LOCMINÉ: Commune entière
— MOREAC: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune qui n’est pas en ZP
— MOUSTOIR AC: Zone nord de la commune ainsi délimitée : nord du Ponctuel
— ÉVELLYS: Partie de la commune qui n'est pas en ZP
— GUENIN: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée par la D768 jusqu’à Talnay puis par la route passant par Bedivy, Kervihan, Kerauffret, Saint-Eno jusqu’à la N24Puis délimitée au sud par la D724 jusqu’à la Haie Basse et la Villeneuve
— LA CHAPELLE-NEUVE: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la route passant par La Villeneuve jusqu’à Kerzo puis par Le Gentil Coq, Keriven puis par la D117
— NOYAL-PONTIVY: Zone au sud du ruisseau de Mengoët
— PLEUGRIFFET: Commune entière
— PLUMÉLIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée Le Blavet jusqu’à la D1 puis par la route passant par Kermaniec, Kerhaluy-Guennec jusqu’à Saint Hilaire puis par la route passant par Lann Brugo jusqu’à la D768
— PLUMELIN: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la D117 puis par la Rue du Stade
— RADENAC: Commune entière
— RÉGUINY: Commune entière hormis la zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard
— SAINT-ALLOUESTRE: Commune entière
— SAINT-THURIAU: Commune entière
—MOREAC: Zone nord-est de la commune ainsi délimitée: au sud par la route passant par Le Guénevin puis à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Le Gal et au sud par la D181 jusqu’à La Madelaine puis par la route passant par Le Crézo, Le Lanninc, Le Cosquer—EVELLYS: Partie de la commune délimitée—au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,—à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët—au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard—PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Est de la commune délimitée par le ruisseau Le Kergouet, puis la route passant par Guerrobic jusqu’à la D1—RÉGUINY Zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard — MOREAC: Zone nord-est de la commune ainsi délimitée: au sud par la route passant par Le Guénevin puis à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Le Gal et au sud par la D181 jusqu’à La Madelaine puis par la route passant par Le Crézo, Le Lanninc, Le Cosquer — EVELLYS: Partie de la commune délimitée—au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,—à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët—au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard — au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys, — à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët — au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard — PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Est de la commune délimitée par le ruisseau Le Kergouet, puis la route passant par Guerrobic jusqu’à la D1 — RÉGUINY Zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard 26.11.2024- 2.12.2024
— MOREAC: Zone nord-est de la commune ainsi délimitée: au sud par la route passant par Le Guénevin puis à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Le Gal et au sud par la D181 jusqu’à La Madelaine puis par la route passant par Le Crézo, Le Lanninc, Le Cosquer
— EVELLYS: Partie de la commune délimitée—au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,—à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët—au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard — au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys, — à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët — au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard
— au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,
— à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët
— au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard
— PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Est de la commune délimitée par le ruisseau Le Kergouet, puis la route passant par Guerrobic jusqu’à la D1
— RÉGUINY Zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard
Département Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00014 GUICHESAMES 8.12.2024
— BIGNAN: Commune entière
— BULÉON: Commune entière
— CREDIN: Zone de la commune ainsi délimitée : sud d’un axe reliant le lieu-dit Keraudran au lieu dit l’Ecu en passant par le centre de Crédin
— KERFOURN: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune délimitée—Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg—A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner — Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg — A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner
— Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg
— A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner
— Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg
— A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner
— LANTILLAC: Commune entière
— LOCMINÉ: Commune entière
— MOREAC: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune qui n’est pas en ZP
— MOUSTOIR AC: Zone nord de la commune ainsi délimitée : nord du Ponctuel
— ÉVELLYS: Partie de la commune qui n'est pas en ZP
— GUENIN: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée par la D768 jusqu’à Talnay puis par la route passant par Bedivy, Kervihan, Kerauffret, Saint-Eno jusqu’à la N24Puis délimitée au sud par la D724 jusqu’à la Haie Basse et la Villeneuve
— LA CHAPELLE-NEUVE: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la route passant par La Villeneuve jusqu’à Kerzo puis par Le Gentil Coq, Keriven puis par la D117
— NOYAL-PONTIVY: Zone au sud du ruisseau de Mengoët
— PLEUGRIFFET: Commune entière
— PLUMÉLIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée Le Blavet jusqu’à la D1 puis par la route passant par Kermaniec, Kerhaluy-Guennec jusqu’à Saint Hilaire puis par la route passant par Lann Brugo jusqu’à la D768
— PLUMELIN: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la D117 puis par la Rue du Stade
— RADENAC: Commune entière
— RÉGUINY: Commune entière hormis la zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard
— SAINT-ALLOUESTRE: Commune entière
— SAINT-THURIAU: Commune entière
— MOREAC: Zone nord-est de la commune ainsi délimitée: au sud par la route passant par Le Guénevin puis à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Le Gal et au sud par la D181 jusqu’à La Madelaine puis par la route passant par Le Crézo, Le Lanninc, Le Cosquer
— EVELLYS: Partie de la commune délimitée—au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,—à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët—au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard — au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys, — à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët — au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard
— au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,
— à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët
— au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard
— au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,
— à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët
— au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard
— PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Est de la commune délimitée par le ruisseau Le Kergouet, puis la route passant par Guerrobic jusqu’à la D1
— RÉGUINY Zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Veneto region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00012 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.710524, E 12.255178 2.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.710524, E 12.255178 24.11.2024-2.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00013 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.6420409662751, E 12.134056544088 2.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.6420409662751, E 12.134056544088 24.11.2024-2.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00015 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.905288528, E 12.057325217 16.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.905288528, E 12.057325217 8.12.2024-16.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00016 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.721413, E 12.368124 18.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.721413, E 12.368124 10.12.2024-18.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00017 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.4582909563169, E 12.0665245845646 20.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.4582909563169, E 12.0665245845646 12.12.2024-20.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00019 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.46053010, E 12.05291290 23.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.46053010, E 12.05291290 15.12.2024-23.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00022 The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.7737, E 12.432319 29.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.7737, E 12.432319 21.12.2024-29.12.2024
Emilia-Romagna region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00003 The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.841417, E 12.076442 26.11.2024
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.841417, E 12.076442 18.11.2024 – 26.11.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00008 The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.752494, E 12.158957 23.11.2024
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.752494, E 12.158957 15.11.2024 – 23.11.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00010 The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.747002, E 12.13436 1.12.2024
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.747002, E 12.13436 23.11.2024-1.12.2024
Lombardia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00014 The area of the parts of Lombardia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.187255, E 10.33539 23.12.2024
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.187255, E 10.33539 15.12.2024-23.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00018 The area of the parts of Lombardia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.17252, E 10.351436 24.12.2024
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.17252, E 10.351436 16.12.2024-24.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00021 The area of the parts of Lombardia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.380577, E 9.450603 29.12.2024
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.380577, E 9.450603 21.12.2024-29.12.2024
Friuli Venezia Giulia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00011 The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.831503, E 13.197163 2.12.2024
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.831503, E 13.197163 24.11.2024-2.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00020 The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.822093, E 13.383938 24.12.2024
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.822093, E 13.383938 16.12.2024-24.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Békés vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00015HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00017-00019HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00027 Bucsa, Füzesgyarmat, Kertészsziget, Kőrösújfalu, Szeghalom és Vésztő települések közigazgatási területének a 47.125795 és a 21.189828, a 47.151233 és a 21.174322, a 47.130782 és a 21.191448, a 47.127623 és a 21.190594, valamint a 47.023065 és a 21.288126 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 26.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00016HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00020HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00022HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00052HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00065-00066 Békésszentandrás, Csabacsűd, Gyomaendrőd, Kardos, Örménykút és Szarvas települések közigazgatási területének a 46.893317 és a 20.424107, a 46.851265 és a 20.590212, a 46.857937 és a 20.338368, a 46.859602é s a 20.635836, a 46.893870 és a 20.380987, valamint a 46.892883 és a 20.367728 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 31.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00025 Békéssámson, Kaszaper, Kardoskút, Mezőhegyes, Mezőkovácsháza, Nagybánhegyes, Orosháza, Pusztaföldvár, Tótkomlós, és Végegyháza települések közigazgatási területének a 46.423992 és a 20.763161 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 12.12.2024
Hajdú-Bihar vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00015HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00017-00019HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00027 Biharnagybajom, Csökmő, Darvas, Nagyrábé, Sárrétudvari, Szerep és Újiráz települések közigazgatási területének a 47.125795 és a 21.189828, a 47.151233 és a 21.174322, a 47.130782 és a 21.191448, a 47.127623 és a 21.190594, valamint a 47.023065 és a 21.288126 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 26.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0028HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0053 Hajdúhadház, Hajdúsámson, Nyíracsád, Nyíradony és Nyírmártonfalva települések közigazgatási területének a 47.682480 és a 21.888394, valamint a 47.684926 és a 21.866182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 30.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105 Álmosd, Bagamér, Hosszúpályi, Kokad, Létavértes, Monostorpályi, Pocsaj, Újléta és Vámospércs települések közigazgatási területének a 47.387114 és a 21.911849, a 47.379120 és a 21.902221, a 47.381722 és a 21.905715, valamint a 47.378793 és a 21.889210 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 7.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105 Kokad és Létavértes települések közigazgatási területének a 47.387114 és a 21.911849, a 47.379120 és a 21.902221, a 47.381722 és a 21.905715, valamint a 47.378793 és a 21.889210 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 29.11.2024 – 7.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104 Folyás, Görbeháza, Hajdúnánás, Polgár, Újtikos és Újszentmargita települések közigazgatási területének a a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 10.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104 Folyás és Polgár települések közigazgatási területének a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 2.12.2024 – 10.12.2024
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00016HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00020HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00022HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00051-00052HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00065-00066HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00086 Cibakháza, Kengyel, Martfű, Mesterszállás, Mezőhék, Mezőtúr, Öcsöd, Rákóczifalva, Rákócziújfalu, Tiszaföldvár, Tiszajenő, Tiszavárkony és Vezseny települések közigazgatási területének a 46.893317 és a 20.424107, a 46.851265 és a 20.590212, valamint a 46.857937 és a 20.338368 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.Cserkeszőlő, Csépa, Kunszentmárton, Nagyrév, Szelevény, Tiszainoka, Tiszakürt és Tiszasas települések védőkörzeten kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe. 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00051HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00086 Martfű és Tiszaföldvár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.988248 és a 20.287832, valamint a 46.996654 és a 20.253719 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 27.11.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167 Besenyszög, Jászalsószentgyörgy, Jászboldogháza, Jászladány, Szászberek, Szolnok, Újszász és Zagyvarékas települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 17.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167 Szászberek, Szolnok, Újszász, Vezseny és Zagyvarékas települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 9.12.2024 – 17.12.2024
Csongrád-Csanád vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00016HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00020-00022HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00033-00034HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00037HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00039-00041HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00043-00049HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00052HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00056HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00058HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00061-00069HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00071HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00076HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00078-00081HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00083-00084HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00091HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00095HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00101HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00103HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00107HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00109HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00111-00112HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00114HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00122HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00126HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00128-00129HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00131-00133HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00135HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00137HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00141HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00152HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00159HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00161HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00169-00170HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00173-00176HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00181HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00183HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00185HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00190 Árpádhalom, Baks, Bordány, Csanytelek, Csongrád, Derekegyház, Dóc, Domaszék, Eperjes, Fábiánsebestyén, Felgyő, Mártély, Mindszent, Mórahalom, Nagymágocs, Nagytőke, Ópusztaszer, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Röszke, Sándorfalva, Szatymaz, Szegvár, Szentes, Székkutas, Tömörkény, Zákányszék és Zsombó védőkörzeten kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe. 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00025 Ambrózfalva, Csanádalberti, Nagyér és Pitvaros települések közigazgatási területének a 46.423992 és a 20.763161 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 12.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00044-00046HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00048HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00056HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00061-00064HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00076HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00078HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00089HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00091HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00101HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00111HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00114HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00122HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00126HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00128-00129HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00131-00133HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00135HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00137HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00141HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00152HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00159HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00161HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00169-00170HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00173-00176HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00181HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00183HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00185HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189 Ásotthalom, Balástya, Csengele, Forráskút, Kistelek, Ópusztaszer, Öttömös, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Ruzsa és Üllés települések teljes közigazgatási területe. 20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00190 Szentes közigazgatási területének a 46.648143 és a 20.284182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
Bács-Kiskun vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00021HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00026HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00030HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00032-00050HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00064HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067-00072HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00074-00085HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00096HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00098-00103HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00149HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00164HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00168-00189 Ágasegyháza, Akasztó, Apostag, Bácsbokod, Bácsborsód, Bácsszentgyörgy, Baja, Ballószög, Balotaszállás, Bátmonostor, Bátya, Borota, Császártöltés, Csátalja, Csávoly, Csengőd, Dávod, Drágszél, Dunaegyháza, Dunafalva, Dunapataj, Dunaszentbenedek, Dunatetétlen, Dunavecse, Dusnok, Érsekcsanád, Érsekhalma, Fajsz, Felsőlajos, Felsőszentiván, Foktő, Fülöpháza, Fülöpjakab, Fülöpszállás, Gara, Géderlak, Hajós, Harta, Helvécia, Hercegszántó, Homokmégy, Izsák, Kalocsa, Katymár, Kecskemét, Kéleshalom, Kerekegyháza, Kunadacs, Kunbaracs, Kunpeszér, Kunszállás, Kunszentmiklós, Ladánybene, Lajosmizse, Lakitelek, Madaras, Mátételke, Miske, Nagybaracska, Nemesnádudvar, Nyárlőrinc, Ordas, Orgovány, Öregcsertő, Páhi, Rém, Solt, Soltszentimre, Sükösd, Szabadszállás, Szakmár, Szalkszentmárton, Szentkirály, Szeremle, Tabdi, Tass, Tiszaalpár, Tiszakécske, Tiszaug, Újsolt, Újtelek, Uszód, Városföld és Vaskút települések védőkörzeten kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe. 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00026HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00042 Fülöpszállás, Izsák és Soltszentimre települések közigazgatási területének a 46.771020 és a 19.266569 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00030HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00033-00041HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00043-00050HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00064HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067-00072HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00074-00085HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00096HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00098-00103HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00122HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00132HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00134-00144HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00147-00154HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00156-00164HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00168-00185HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189 Bácsalmás, Bácsszőlős, Balotaszállás, Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Csikéria, Csólyospálos, Gátér, Harkakötöny, Imrehegy, Jakabszállás, Jánoshalma, Jászszentlászló, Kaskantyú, Kecel, Kelebia, Kiskőrös, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kiskunhalas, Kiskunmajsa, Kisszállás, Kömpöc, Kunbaja, Kunfehértó, Mélykút, Móricgát, Orgovány, Páhi, Pálmonostora, Petőfiszállás, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tataháza, Tázlár, Tompa és Zsana települések teljes közigazgatási területe.Borota és Kéleshalom települések közigazgatási területének a 46.308760 és a 19.291230 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00123HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00145-00146HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00155HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00186-00187 Borota, Csávoly és Rém települések közigazgatási területének a 46.254915 és a 19.131604, a 46.257157 és a 19.128105, a 46.256205 és a 19.125921, valamint a 46.261845 és a 19.129315 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
Fejér vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00023HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00029HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00031 Alap, Alsószentiván, Baracs, Daruszentmiklós, Dunaújváros, Előszállás, Hantos, Kisapostag, Mezőfalva, Nagykarácsony, Nagyvenyim, Rácalmás és Sárbogárd települések közigazgatási területének a 46.899692 és a 18.818620, a 46.884010 és a 18.818080, valamint az 46.905820 és a 18.849790 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 1.1.2025
Tolna vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00023HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00029HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00031 Dunaföldvár település közigazgatási területének a 46.899692 és a 18.818620, a 46.884010 és a 18.818080, valamint az 46.905820 és a 18.849790 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00032 Bogyiszló, Decs és Őcsény települések közigazgatási területének a 46.278670 és a 18.980240 849790 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150 Aparhant, Bonyhád, Bonyhádvarasd, Csibrák, Döbrököz, Györe, Izmény, Kisdorog, Kismányok, Kisvejke, Kurd, Lengyel, Mucsfa, Mucsi, Nagymányok, Nagyvejke, Tevel, Váralja és Závod települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 15.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150 Györe, Izmény, Kisvejke, Lengyel és Mucsfa települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 7.12.2024 – 15.12.2024
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0028HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0053 Balkány Bököny, Geszteréd, Nyírgelse, Nyírlugos, Nyírmihálydi, és Szakoly települések közigazgatási területének a 47.682480 és az 21.888394, valamint a 47.684926 és a 21.866182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 30.11.2024
Komárom-Esztergom vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165 Ács, Ászár, Bábolna, Bakonyszombathely, Bana, Bársonyos, Csép, Ete, Kerékteleki, Kisbér, Nagyigmánd, Tárkány közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 21.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165 Bábolna, Kerékteleki és Tárkány települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 13.12.2024 – 21.12.2024
Győr-Moson-Sopron vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165 Mezőörs, Rétalap, Bőny, Mezőörs, Nyalka, Pázmándfalu, Pér, Rétalap, Táp, Tápszentmiklós közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 21.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165 Bana és Rétalap települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 13.12.2024 – 21.12.2024
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104 Hejőkürt, Oszlár, Tiszakeszi, Tiszapalkonya, Tiszatarján és Tiszaújváros települések közigazgatási területének a a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 9.12.2024
Baranya vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150 Alsómocsolád, Bikal, Egyházaskozár, Hegyhátmaróc, Kárász, Köblény, Mágocs, Máza, Mekényes, Nagyhajmás, Szalatnak, Szászvár, Tófű és Vékény települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 15.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150 Egyházaskozár, Mekényes és Szárász települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 7.12.2024 – 15.12.2024
Somogy vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00166 Bárdudvarnok, Beleg, Csököly, Gige, Görgeteg, Hedrehely, Hencse, Homokszentgyörgy, Jákó, Kadarkút, Kisbajom, Kőkút, Kutas, Lábod, Mike, Nagykorpád, Rinyabesenyő, Rinyakovácsi, Szabás és Visnye települések közigazgatási területének a 46.238856 és a 17.538140 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 17.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00166 Kadarkút, Lábod, Mike és Nagykorpád települések közigazgatási területének a 46.238856 és a 17.538140GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. 9.12.2024 – 17.12.2024
Pest vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167 Abony, Tápiógyörgye és Újszilvás települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. 17.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Provinces Gelderland, Utrecht and Flevoland
NL-HPAI(P)-2024-00003 Those parts of the the provinces of Gelderland, Utrecht en Flevoland extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long / 5.54 lat 52.27 20.12.2024
Those parts of the provinces of Gelderland and Flevoland contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long / 5.54 lat 52.27 12.12.2024 – 20.12.2024
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00019 Those parts of the province Gelderland contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.21 lat 51.82 21.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Niederösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00002AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00003AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00004 Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Amstetten, Allhartsberg, Ardagger, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Ertl, Haag, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St. Peter in der Au, Strengberg, Wallsee-Sindelburg, Weistrach, Winklarn, Wolfsbach, Ybbsitz, Zeillern innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 12,76 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 12,76 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Scheibbs, Teile der Gemeinde Randegg innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 12,76 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind. 10.12.2024
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, St. Peter in der Au, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind. 2.12.2024 – 10.12.2024
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00006 Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Ardagger, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Ertl, Euratsfeld, Haag, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St. Peter an der Au, Strengberg, Wallsee-Sindelburg, Weistrach, Winklarn, Wolfsbach, Ybbsitz, Zeillern innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Scheibbs, Teile der Gemeinde Randegg innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs (Stadt), Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Perg, Teile der Gemeinde Mitterkirchen im Machland innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Steyr-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Gaflenz, Maria Neustift innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind. 15.12.2024
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St.Peter an der Au, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs (Stadt), Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind. 7.12.2024 – 15.12.2024
Niederösterreich und Oberösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00005 Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Behamberg, Ennsdorf, Ernsthofen, Haag, Haidershofen, St. Pantaleon-Erla, Strengberg, St. Valentin, Weistrach, innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.Bezirk Linz-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Asten, Enns, Hargelsberg, Hofkirchen im Traunkreis, Kronstorf, Niederneukirchen, St. Florian innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,49 sind.Bezirk Steyr-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Dietach, Wolfern innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.Bezirk Stadt Steyr, Teile der Gemeinde Steyr innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind. 13.12.2024
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Ernsthofen, St. Valentin innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.Bezirk Linz-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Hargelsberg, Kronstorf innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind. 5.12.2024 – 13.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00030PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00033PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00034PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00035PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00036PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00038 W województwie wielkopolskim:1)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Ulejno, Dębiczek, Janowo, Mączniki, Kijewo, Chwałkowo, Czartki, Nadziejewo, Strzeszki, Pętkowo, Słupia Wielka, Annopole, Lorenka, Brzeziny, Koszuty, Koszuty-Huby, Żabikowo, Trzebisławki, Staniszewo, Pławce, Zdziechowice;2)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Mieczysławowo, Bukowy Las, Zberki, Rusibórz, Rusiborek, Kopaszyce, Orzeszkowo, Dominowo, Szrapki, Marianowo, Gablin, Bagrowo, Michałowo, Wysławice, Karolewo, Andrzejpole, Borzejewo, Chłapowo, Nowojewo, Biskupice, Giecz, Poświątno, Janowo;3)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości: Murzynowo Leśne, Murzynowiec Leśny, Garby, Baba, Kaźmierki, Sulęcinek, Borowo, Sulęcin, Bogusławki, Bronisław, Witowo, Krzykosy, Przymiarki, Solec, Małoszki, Lubrze, Pięczkowo, Młodzikówko, Młodzikowo, Młodzikowice;4)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, miejscowości: Komorze, Komorze Nowe, Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, Hermanów, Wolica Kozia, Dębno, Lutynia, Franciszków;5)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Zaniemyśl, miejscowość: Pigłowice, Śnieciska, Polwica-Huby, Polwica, Dobroczyn Pierwszy, Płaczki, Brzostek, Luboniec, Wyszakowskie Huby, Wyszakowo, Czarnotki, Jaszkowo, Bożydar, Winna, Mądre;6)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Orzechowo, Szczodrzejewo, Książno, Chlebowo, Nowa Wieś Podgórna;7)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Bardo, Chwalibogowo, Obłaczkowo, Chocicza Mała, Osowo, Nowa Wieś Królewska, Grzymysławice, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo;8)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Mystki, Targowa Górka, Racławki, Mała Górka;9)w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Lgów, Gęczew, Gąsiorów, Śmiełów, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Paruchów, Komorze Przybysławskie;10)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Krzywa Góra, Grabowo Królewskie, Kołaczkowo, Łagiewki, Wszembórz, Cieśle Wielkie, Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec, Gorazdowo;11)w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowość: Prusinowo, Biernatki, Dębiec, Kórnik, Dziećmierowo, Szczodrzykowo, Celestynowo, Pierzchno, Runowo, Kromolice;12)w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo, miejscowości: Śródka, Krzyżowniki, Zimin, Krerowo, Bugaj, Lipowiec, Kleszczewo, Bylin, Nagradowice, Poklatki, Markowice;13)w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowość: Czerlejno, Mikuszyn, Węgierskie, Ługowiny, Klony, Drzązgowo, Sokolniki Drzązgowskie, Gułtowy;14)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowości: Tarnowa, Pyzdry, Dłusk. 1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Ulejno, Dębiczek, Janowo, Mączniki, Kijewo, Chwałkowo, Czartki, Nadziejewo, Strzeszki, Pętkowo, Słupia Wielka, Annopole, Lorenka, Brzeziny, Koszuty, Koszuty-Huby, Żabikowo, Trzebisławki, Staniszewo, Pławce, Zdziechowice; 2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Mieczysławowo, Bukowy Las, Zberki, Rusibórz, Rusiborek, Kopaszyce, Orzeszkowo, Dominowo, Szrapki, Marianowo, Gablin, Bagrowo, Michałowo, Wysławice, Karolewo, Andrzejpole, Borzejewo, Chłapowo, Nowojewo, Biskupice, Giecz, Poświątno, Janowo; 3) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości: Murzynowo Leśne, Murzynowiec Leśny, Garby, Baba, Kaźmierki, Sulęcinek, Borowo, Sulęcin, Bogusławki, Bronisław, Witowo, Krzykosy, Przymiarki, Solec, Małoszki, Lubrze, Pięczkowo, Młodzikówko, Młodzikowo, Młodzikowice; 4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, miejscowości: Komorze, Komorze Nowe, Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, Hermanów, Wolica Kozia, Dębno, Lutynia, Franciszków; 5) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Zaniemyśl, miejscowość: Pigłowice, Śnieciska, Polwica-Huby, Polwica, Dobroczyn Pierwszy, Płaczki, Brzostek, Luboniec, Wyszakowskie Huby, Wyszakowo, Czarnotki, Jaszkowo, Bożydar, Winna, Mądre; 6) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Orzechowo, Szczodrzejewo, Książno, Chlebowo, Nowa Wieś Podgórna; 7) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Bardo, Chwalibogowo, Obłaczkowo, Chocicza Mała, Osowo, Nowa Wieś Królewska, Grzymysławice, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo; 8) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Mystki, Targowa Górka, Racławki, Mała Górka; 9) w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Lgów, Gęczew, Gąsiorów, Śmiełów, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Paruchów, Komorze Przybysławskie; 10) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Krzywa Góra, Grabowo Królewskie, Kołaczkowo, Łagiewki, Wszembórz, Cieśle Wielkie, Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec, Gorazdowo; 11) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowość: Prusinowo, Biernatki, Dębiec, Kórnik, Dziećmierowo, Szczodrzykowo, Celestynowo, Pierzchno, Runowo, Kromolice; 12) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo, miejscowości: Śródka, Krzyżowniki, Zimin, Krerowo, Bugaj, Lipowiec, Kleszczewo, Bylin, Nagradowice, Poklatki, Markowice; 13) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowość: Czerlejno, Mikuszyn, Węgierskie, Ługowiny, Klony, Drzązgowo, Sokolniki Drzązgowskie, Gułtowy; 14) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowości: Tarnowa, Pyzdry, Dłusk. 19.12.2024
1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Ulejno, Dębiczek, Janowo, Mączniki, Kijewo, Chwałkowo, Czartki, Nadziejewo, Strzeszki, Pętkowo, Słupia Wielka, Annopole, Lorenka, Brzeziny, Koszuty, Koszuty-Huby, Żabikowo, Trzebisławki, Staniszewo, Pławce, Zdziechowice;
2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Mieczysławowo, Bukowy Las, Zberki, Rusibórz, Rusiborek, Kopaszyce, Orzeszkowo, Dominowo, Szrapki, Marianowo, Gablin, Bagrowo, Michałowo, Wysławice, Karolewo, Andrzejpole, Borzejewo, Chłapowo, Nowojewo, Biskupice, Giecz, Poświątno, Janowo;
3) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości: Murzynowo Leśne, Murzynowiec Leśny, Garby, Baba, Kaźmierki, Sulęcinek, Borowo, Sulęcin, Bogusławki, Bronisław, Witowo, Krzykosy, Przymiarki, Solec, Małoszki, Lubrze, Pięczkowo, Młodzikówko, Młodzikowo, Młodzikowice;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, miejscowości: Komorze, Komorze Nowe, Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, Hermanów, Wolica Kozia, Dębno, Lutynia, Franciszków;
5) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Zaniemyśl, miejscowość: Pigłowice, Śnieciska, Polwica-Huby, Polwica, Dobroczyn Pierwszy, Płaczki, Brzostek, Luboniec, Wyszakowskie Huby, Wyszakowo, Czarnotki, Jaszkowo, Bożydar, Winna, Mądre;
6) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Orzechowo, Szczodrzejewo, Książno, Chlebowo, Nowa Wieś Podgórna;
7) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Bardo, Chwalibogowo, Obłaczkowo, Chocicza Mała, Osowo, Nowa Wieś Królewska, Grzymysławice, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo;
8) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Mystki, Targowa Górka, Racławki, Mała Górka;
9) w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Lgów, Gęczew, Gąsiorów, Śmiełów, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Paruchów, Komorze Przybysławskie;
10) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Krzywa Góra, Grabowo Królewskie, Kołaczkowo, Łagiewki, Wszembórz, Cieśle Wielkie, Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec, Gorazdowo;
11) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowość: Prusinowo, Biernatki, Dębiec, Kórnik, Dziećmierowo, Szczodrzykowo, Celestynowo, Pierzchno, Runowo, Kromolice;
12) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo, miejscowości: Śródka, Krzyżowniki, Zimin, Krerowo, Bugaj, Lipowiec, Kleszczewo, Bylin, Nagradowice, Poklatki, Markowice;
13) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowość: Czerlejno, Mikuszyn, Węgierskie, Ługowiny, Klony, Drzązgowo, Sokolniki Drzązgowskie, Gułtowy;
14) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowości: Tarnowa, Pyzdry, Dłusk.
W województwie wielkopolskim:1)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo;2)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka;3)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo;4)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo;5)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo 1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo; 2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka; 3) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo; 4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo; 5) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo 11.12.2024-19.12.2024
1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo;
2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka;
3) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo;
5) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-2024-00033 W województwie wielkopolskim:1)Część gmin: Szamotuły, Ostroróg, Pniewy, Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim.2)Część gmin: Tarnowo Podgórne, Rokietnica w powiecie poznańskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636 1) Część gmin: Szamotuły, Ostroróg, Pniewy, Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim. 2) Część gmin: Tarnowo Podgórne, Rokietnica w powiecie poznańskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636 4.12.2024
1) Część gmin: Szamotuły, Ostroróg, Pniewy, Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim.
2) Część gmin: Tarnowo Podgórne, Rokietnica w powiecie poznańskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636
W województwie wielkopolskim:1)Część gmin: Kaźmierz i Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636 1) Część gmin: Kaźmierz i Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636 26.11.2024 -4.12.2024
1) Część gmin: Kaźmierz i Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00037 W województwie dolnośląskim:1)w powiecie wołowskim:a)w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo;2)w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,b)w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,c)w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy;3)w powiecie trzebnickim:a)w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,b)w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka. 1) w powiecie wołowskim:a)w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo; a) w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo; 2) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,b)w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,c)w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy; a) w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków, b) w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe, c) w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy; 3) w powiecie trzebnickim:a)w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,b)w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka. a) w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino, b) w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka. 11.12.2024
1) w powiecie wołowskim:a)w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo; a) w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo;
a) w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo;
2) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,b)w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,c)w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy; a) w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków, b) w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe, c) w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy;
a) w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,
b) w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,
c) w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy;
3) w powiecie trzebnickim:a)w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,b)w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka. a) w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino, b) w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka.
a) w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,
b) w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka.
W województwie dolnośląskim:1)w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice;2)w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka;3)w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki. 1) w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice; 2) w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka; 3) w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki. 3.12.2024 – 11.12.2024
1) w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice;
2) w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka;
3) w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00038PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00041 W województwie lubelskim:W powiecie lubartowskim:1.w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Krasne, Ochoża, Orzechów Kolonia, Rudka Starościańska;2.w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości Bójki, Jamy, Kaznów, Kaznów Kolonia, Kolechowice Folwark, Kolechowice Kolonia, Rozkopaczew, Rudka Kijańska, Wólka Stara Kijańska;3.w gminie Serniki miejscowości: Brzostówka, Wólka Zawieprzycka4.w gminie Niedźwiada miejscowości: Brzeźnica Bychawska, ZabieleW powiecie łęczyńskim:1.w gminie Ludwin miejscowości Krzczeń, Rogóźno, Zezulin Drugi;W powiecie parczewskim:1.w gminie Sosnowica miejscowości: Stary Orzechowów, Nowy Orzechów, Walerianów;2.w gminie Dębowa Kłoda miejscowości: Białka, Makoszka;3.w gminie Parczew: Babianka, Tyśmienica, Buradów 1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Krasne, Ochoża, Orzechów Kolonia, Rudka Starościańska; 2. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości Bójki, Jamy, Kaznów, Kaznów Kolonia, Kolechowice Folwark, Kolechowice Kolonia, Rozkopaczew, Rudka Kijańska, Wólka Stara Kijańska; 3. w gminie Serniki miejscowości: Brzostówka, Wólka Zawieprzycka 4. w gminie Niedźwiada miejscowości: Brzeźnica Bychawska, Zabiele 1. w gminie Ludwin miejscowości Krzczeń, Rogóźno, Zezulin Drugi; 1. w gminie Sosnowica miejscowości: Stary Orzechowów, Nowy Orzechów, Walerianów; 2. w gminie Dębowa Kłoda miejscowości: Białka, Makoszka; 3. w gminie Parczew: Babianka, Tyśmienica, Buradów 21.12.2024
1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Krasne, Ochoża, Orzechów Kolonia, Rudka Starościańska;
2. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości Bójki, Jamy, Kaznów, Kaznów Kolonia, Kolechowice Folwark, Kolechowice Kolonia, Rozkopaczew, Rudka Kijańska, Wólka Stara Kijańska;
3. w gminie Serniki miejscowości: Brzostówka, Wólka Zawieprzycka
4. w gminie Niedźwiada miejscowości: Brzeźnica Bychawska, Zabiele
1. w gminie Ludwin miejscowości Krzczeń, Rogóźno, Zezulin Drugi;
1. w gminie Sosnowica miejscowości: Stary Orzechowów, Nowy Orzechów, Walerianów;
2. w gminie Dębowa Kłoda miejscowości: Białka, Makoszka;
3. w gminie Parczew: Babianka, Tyśmienica, Buradów
W województwie lubelskim:W powiecie lubartowskim:1.w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary;2.w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy;3.w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice. 1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary; 2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy; 3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice. 13.12.2024-21.12.2024
1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary;
2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy;
3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00040 W województwie dolnośląskim:1)w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,b)w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów,2)w powiecie lubińskim:a)w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk3)w powiecie polkowickim:a)w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce,4)w powiecie głogowskim:a)w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borkówb)w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,c)w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.W powiecie lubuskim, w powiecie wschowskim:1)w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowości: Gola, Górczyna, Jędrzychowice, Kowalewo, Stare Drzewce, Szlichtyngowa, Zamysłów,2)w gminie Wschowa, miejscowości: Kandlewo, Konradowo, Siedlnica, przysiółek Czerlejewo. 1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,b)w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice, b) w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów, 2) w powiecie lubińskim:a)w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk a) w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk 3) w powiecie polkowickim:a)w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce, a) w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce, 4) w powiecie głogowskim:a)w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borkówb)w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,c)w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina. a) w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków b) w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów, c) w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina. 1) w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowości: Gola, Górczyna, Jędrzychowice, Kowalewo, Stare Drzewce, Szlichtyngowa, Zamysłów, 2) w gminie Wschowa, miejscowości: Kandlewo, Konradowo, Siedlnica, przysiółek Czerlejewo. 22.12.2024
1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,b)w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice, b) w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,
b) w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów,
2) w powiecie lubińskim:a)w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk a) w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk
a) w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk
3) w powiecie polkowickim:a)w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce, a) w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce,
a) w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce,
4) w powiecie głogowskim:a)w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borkówb)w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,c)w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina. a) w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków b) w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów, c) w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.
a) w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków
b) w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,
c) w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.
1) w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowości: Gola, Górczyna, Jędrzychowice, Kowalewo, Stare Drzewce, Szlichtyngowa, Zamysłów,
2) w gminie Wschowa, miejscowości: Kandlewo, Konradowo, Siedlnica, przysiółek Czerlejewo.
W województwie dolnośląskim:1)w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,2)w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.W województwie lubuskim:1)w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów. 1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, 2) w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce. 1) w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów. 14.12.2024-22.12.2024
1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
2) w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.
1) w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów.
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00043PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00045 W województwie opolskim, w powiecie namysłowskim:1)w gminie Namysłów, miejscowości: Ligotka, Krasowice, Nowe Smarchowice, Smarchowice Śląskie, Smarchowice Wielkie, Łączany, Ziemiełowice, Jastrzębie, Woskowice Małe, Igłowice, Baldwinowice, Głuszyna, Smogorzów, Brzezinka, Pawłowice Namysłowskie;2)w gminie Wilków, miejscowości: Wilków, Lubska, Dębnik, Wojciechów, Pągów, Idzikowice, Jakubowice;3)w gminie Domaszowice, miejscowości: Gręboszów, Strzelce, Siemysłów, Woskowice Górne, Domaszowice.W województwie wielkopolskim:, w powiecie kępińskim:1)w powiecie kępińskim, w gminie Rychtal, miejscowości: Dalanów, Darnowiec, Dworzyszcze, Krzyżowniki, Proszów, Rychtal, Sadogóra, Skoroszów, Zgorzelec;2)w gminie Perzów, miejscowości: Zbyczyna, Ligota, Trębaczów, Posmyk.W województwie dolnośląskim:w powiecie oleśnickim, w gminie Dziadowa Kłoda, miejscowości: Gronowice, Dalborowice, Gołębice, Miłowice. 1) w gminie Namysłów, miejscowości: Ligotka, Krasowice, Nowe Smarchowice, Smarchowice Śląskie, Smarchowice Wielkie, Łączany, Ziemiełowice, Jastrzębie, Woskowice Małe, Igłowice, Baldwinowice, Głuszyna, Smogorzów, Brzezinka, Pawłowice Namysłowskie; 2) w gminie Wilków, miejscowości: Wilków, Lubska, Dębnik, Wojciechów, Pągów, Idzikowice, Jakubowice; 3) w gminie Domaszowice, miejscowości: Gręboszów, Strzelce, Siemysłów, Woskowice Górne, Domaszowice. 1) w powiecie kępińskim, w gminie Rychtal, miejscowości: Dalanów, Darnowiec, Dworzyszcze, Krzyżowniki, Proszów, Rychtal, Sadogóra, Skoroszów, Zgorzelec; 2) w gminie Perzów, miejscowości: Zbyczyna, Ligota, Trębaczów, Posmyk. 22.12.2024
1) w gminie Namysłów, miejscowości: Ligotka, Krasowice, Nowe Smarchowice, Smarchowice Śląskie, Smarchowice Wielkie, Łączany, Ziemiełowice, Jastrzębie, Woskowice Małe, Igłowice, Baldwinowice, Głuszyna, Smogorzów, Brzezinka, Pawłowice Namysłowskie;
2) w gminie Wilków, miejscowości: Wilków, Lubska, Dębnik, Wojciechów, Pągów, Idzikowice, Jakubowice;
3) w gminie Domaszowice, miejscowości: Gręboszów, Strzelce, Siemysłów, Woskowice Górne, Domaszowice.
1) w powiecie kępińskim, w gminie Rychtal, miejscowości: Dalanów, Darnowiec, Dworzyszcze, Krzyżowniki, Proszów, Rychtal, Sadogóra, Skoroszów, Zgorzelec;
2) w gminie Perzów, miejscowości: Zbyczyna, Ligota, Trębaczów, Posmyk.
W województwie opolskim:1)w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków. 1) w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków. 12.12.2024-20.12.2024
1) w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00042 W województwie śląskim, w powiecie gliwickim:1)w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ciochowice, Pisarzowice, Toszek, Kotliszowice, Sarnów, Płużniczka, Wilkowiczki, Paczyna. Częściowo miejscowości: Paczynka, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulicy Pniowskiej, Boguszyce z wyłączeniem kolonii Zalesie oraz Pniów, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulic Górnej i Pniowskiej;2)w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowości: Poniszowice, Słupsko, Chechło, Widów, Łany, Pławniowice, Bycina, Niewiesze. Częściowo miejscowości: Rudno i Rudziniec, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż linii kolejowej;3)w gminie Wielowieś, miejscowości: Gajowice, Dąbrówka, Wiśnicze. Częściowo miejscowości: Zacharzowice, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż cieku wodnego „Pniówka”, Świbie w wyłączeniem części wsi o nazwie Napłatki.W województwie opolskim, w powiecie strzeleckim:1)w gminie Jemielnica, miejscowości: Barut – na południe od ul. Polnej i Marka Prawego, Centawa, Jemielnica-na południowy wschód od DW426;2)w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Brzezina, Dziewkowice, Warmątowice, Strzelce Opolskie- dzielnica Mokre Łany;3)w gminie Ujazd, miejscowości: Balcarzowice, Jaryszów, Niezdrowice – Wydzierów (ul. Wiejska 1-7), Nogowczyce, Olszowa – osada Komorniki, Sieroniowice, Stary Ujazd, Ujazd, Zimna Wódka 1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ciochowice, Pisarzowice, Toszek, Kotliszowice, Sarnów, Płużniczka, Wilkowiczki, Paczyna. Częściowo miejscowości: Paczynka, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulicy Pniowskiej, Boguszyce z wyłączeniem kolonii Zalesie oraz Pniów, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulic Górnej i Pniowskiej; 2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowości: Poniszowice, Słupsko, Chechło, Widów, Łany, Pławniowice, Bycina, Niewiesze. Częściowo miejscowości: Rudno i Rudziniec, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż linii kolejowej; 3) w gminie Wielowieś, miejscowości: Gajowice, Dąbrówka, Wiśnicze. Częściowo miejscowości: Zacharzowice, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż cieku wodnego „Pniówka”, Świbie w wyłączeniem części wsi o nazwie Napłatki. 1) w gminie Jemielnica, miejscowości: Barut – na południe od ul. Polnej i Marka Prawego, Centawa, Jemielnica-na południowy wschód od DW426; 2) w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Brzezina, Dziewkowice, Warmątowice, Strzelce Opolskie- dzielnica Mokre Łany; 3) w gminie Ujazd, miejscowości: Balcarzowice, Jaryszów, Niezdrowice – Wydzierów (ul. Wiejska 1-7), Nogowczyce, Olszowa – osada Komorniki, Sieroniowice, Stary Ujazd, Ujazd, Zimna Wódka 25.12.2024
1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ciochowice, Pisarzowice, Toszek, Kotliszowice, Sarnów, Płużniczka, Wilkowiczki, Paczyna. Częściowo miejscowości: Paczynka, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulicy Pniowskiej, Boguszyce z wyłączeniem kolonii Zalesie oraz Pniów, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulic Górnej i Pniowskiej;
2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowości: Poniszowice, Słupsko, Chechło, Widów, Łany, Pławniowice, Bycina, Niewiesze. Częściowo miejscowości: Rudno i Rudziniec, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż linii kolejowej;
3) w gminie Wielowieś, miejscowości: Gajowice, Dąbrówka, Wiśnicze. Częściowo miejscowości: Zacharzowice, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż cieku wodnego „Pniówka”, Świbie w wyłączeniem części wsi o nazwie Napłatki.
1) w gminie Jemielnica, miejscowości: Barut – na południe od ul. Polnej i Marka Prawego, Centawa, Jemielnica-na południowy wschód od DW426;
2) w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Brzezina, Dziewkowice, Warmątowice, Strzelce Opolskie- dzielnica Mokre Łany;
3) w gminie Ujazd, miejscowości: Balcarzowice, Jaryszów, Niezdrowice – Wydzierów (ul. Wiejska 1-7), Nogowczyce, Olszowa – osada Komorniki, Sieroniowice, Stary Ujazd, Ujazd, Zimna Wódka
W województwie śląskim, w powiecie gliwickim:1)w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie;2)w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.W województwie opolskim:1)w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka, Płużnica Wielka. 1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie; 2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia. 1) w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka, Płużnica Wielka. 17.12.2024-25.12.2024
1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie;
2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.
1) w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka, Płużnica Wielka.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00043 W województwie mazowieckim, w powiecie siedleckim:1)w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Borki-Kosiorki, Borki-Paduchy, Borki-Sołdy, Ciosny Daćbogi, Gostchorz, Kaczory, Nowe Okniny, Okniny-Podzdrój, Pluty, Stare Okniny, Śmiary, Tworki, Wiśniew, Wiśniew-Kolonia wyłącznie część miejscowości sięgającej do drogi krajowej nr 63;2)w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Borki-Kosy, Borki-Wyrki, Bzów, Chromna, Grodzisk, Jasionka, Karcze, Ługi Wielkie, Pogonów, Rówce, Tchórzew, Tchórzew-Plewki, Wólka Kamienna, Zbuczyn, Zdany.W województwie lubelskim, w powiecie łukowskim:1)w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Biardy, Gołaszyn, Gręzówka, Gręzówka Kolonia, Klimki, Ławki, Łuków, Role, Suleje, Turze Rogi, Wólka Świątkowa, Zalesie;2)w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Dębowica, Karwów, Mikłusy, Nurzyna, Płudy, Popławy Rogale, Szaniawy-Matysy, Szaniawy-Poniaty, Świercze, Trzebieszów Drugi, Trzebieszów Kolonia, Trzebieszów Pierwszy, Wierzejki, Wylany, Zaolszynie, Zembry. 1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Borki-Kosiorki, Borki-Paduchy, Borki-Sołdy, Ciosny Daćbogi, Gostchorz, Kaczory, Nowe Okniny, Okniny-Podzdrój, Pluty, Stare Okniny, Śmiary, Tworki, Wiśniew, Wiśniew-Kolonia wyłącznie część miejscowości sięgającej do drogi krajowej nr 63; 2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Borki-Kosy, Borki-Wyrki, Bzów, Chromna, Grodzisk, Jasionka, Karcze, Ługi Wielkie, Pogonów, Rówce, Tchórzew, Tchórzew-Plewki, Wólka Kamienna, Zbuczyn, Zdany. 1) w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Biardy, Gołaszyn, Gręzówka, Gręzówka Kolonia, Klimki, Ławki, Łuków, Role, Suleje, Turze Rogi, Wólka Świątkowa, Zalesie; 2) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Dębowica, Karwów, Mikłusy, Nurzyna, Płudy, Popławy Rogale, Szaniawy-Matysy, Szaniawy-Poniaty, Świercze, Trzebieszów Drugi, Trzebieszów Kolonia, Trzebieszów Pierwszy, Wierzejki, Wylany, Zaolszynie, Zembry. 29.12.2024
1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Borki-Kosiorki, Borki-Paduchy, Borki-Sołdy, Ciosny Daćbogi, Gostchorz, Kaczory, Nowe Okniny, Okniny-Podzdrój, Pluty, Stare Okniny, Śmiary, Tworki, Wiśniew, Wiśniew-Kolonia wyłącznie część miejscowości sięgającej do drogi krajowej nr 63;
2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Borki-Kosy, Borki-Wyrki, Bzów, Chromna, Grodzisk, Jasionka, Karcze, Ługi Wielkie, Pogonów, Rówce, Tchórzew, Tchórzew-Plewki, Wólka Kamienna, Zbuczyn, Zdany.
1) w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Biardy, Gołaszyn, Gręzówka, Gręzówka Kolonia, Klimki, Ławki, Łuków, Role, Suleje, Turze Rogi, Wólka Świątkowa, Zalesie;
2) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Dębowica, Karwów, Mikłusy, Nurzyna, Płudy, Popławy Rogale, Szaniawy-Matysy, Szaniawy-Poniaty, Świercze, Trzebieszów Drugi, Trzebieszów Kolonia, Trzebieszów Pierwszy, Wierzejki, Wylany, Zaolszynie, Zembry.
W województwie mazowieckim, w powiecie siedleckim:1)w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie;2)w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.W województwie lubelskim, w powiecie łukowskim:1)w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna;2)w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Krynka. 1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie; 2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka. 1) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna; 2) w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Krynka. 21.12.2024-29.12.2024
1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie;
2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.
1) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna;
2) w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Krynka.
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00044 W województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:1)w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;b)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone.2)w powiecie nowomiejskim:a)w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;b)w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra. 1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;b)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone. a) w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki; b) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo; c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone. 2) w powiecie nowomiejskim:a)w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;b)w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra. a) w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi; b) w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański; c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra. 28.12.2024
1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;b)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone. a) w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki; b) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo; c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone.
a) w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;
b) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;
c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone.
2) w powiecie nowomiejskim:a)w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;b)w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra. a) w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi; b) w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański; c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra.
a) w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;
b) w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;
c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra.
W województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:1)w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;2)w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi. 1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; 2) w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi. 20.12.2024-28.12.2024
1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;
b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
2) w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi.
1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Ulejno, Dębiczek, Janowo, Mączniki, Kijewo, Chwałkowo, Czartki, Nadziejewo, Strzeszki, Pętkowo, Słupia Wielka, Annopole, Lorenka, Brzeziny, Koszuty, Koszuty-Huby, Żabikowo, Trzebisławki, Staniszewo, Pławce, Zdziechowice;
2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Mieczysławowo, Bukowy Las, Zberki, Rusibórz, Rusiborek, Kopaszyce, Orzeszkowo, Dominowo, Szrapki, Marianowo, Gablin, Bagrowo, Michałowo, Wysławice, Karolewo, Andrzejpole, Borzejewo, Chłapowo, Nowojewo, Biskupice, Giecz, Poświątno, Janowo;
3) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości: Murzynowo Leśne, Murzynowiec Leśny, Garby, Baba, Kaźmierki, Sulęcinek, Borowo, Sulęcin, Bogusławki, Bronisław, Witowo, Krzykosy, Przymiarki, Solec, Małoszki, Lubrze, Pięczkowo, Młodzikówko, Młodzikowo, Młodzikowice;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, miejscowości: Komorze, Komorze Nowe, Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, Hermanów, Wolica Kozia, Dębno, Lutynia, Franciszków;
5) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Zaniemyśl, miejscowość: Pigłowice, Śnieciska, Polwica-Huby, Polwica, Dobroczyn Pierwszy, Płaczki, Brzostek, Luboniec, Wyszakowskie Huby, Wyszakowo, Czarnotki, Jaszkowo, Bożydar, Winna, Mądre;
6) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Orzechowo, Szczodrzejewo, Książno, Chlebowo, Nowa Wieś Podgórna;
7) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Bardo, Chwalibogowo, Obłaczkowo, Chocicza Mała, Osowo, Nowa Wieś Królewska, Grzymysławice, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo;
8) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Mystki, Targowa Górka, Racławki, Mała Górka;
9) w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Lgów, Gęczew, Gąsiorów, Śmiełów, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Paruchów, Komorze Przybysławskie;
10) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Krzywa Góra, Grabowo Królewskie, Kołaczkowo, Łagiewki, Wszembórz, Cieśle Wielkie, Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec, Gorazdowo;
11) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowość: Prusinowo, Biernatki, Dębiec, Kórnik, Dziećmierowo, Szczodrzykowo, Celestynowo, Pierzchno, Runowo, Kromolice;
12) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo, miejscowości: Śródka, Krzyżowniki, Zimin, Krerowo, Bugaj, Lipowiec, Kleszczewo, Bylin, Nagradowice, Poklatki, Markowice;
13) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowość: Czerlejno, Mikuszyn, Węgierskie, Ługowiny, Klony, Drzązgowo, Sokolniki Drzązgowskie, Gułtowy;
14) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowości: Tarnowa, Pyzdry, Dłusk.
1) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo;
2) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka;
3) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo;
5) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo
1) Część gmin: Szamotuły, Ostroróg, Pniewy, Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim.
2) Część gmin: Tarnowo Podgórne, Rokietnica w powiecie poznańskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636
1) Część gmin: Kaźmierz i Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim.Zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636
1) w powiecie wołowskim:a)w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo; a) w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo;
a) w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo;
a) w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo;
2) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,b)w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,c)w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy; a) w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków, b) w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe, c) w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy;
a) w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,
b) w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,
c) w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy;
a) w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków,
b) w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe,
c) w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy;
3) w powiecie trzebnickim:a)w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,b)w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka. a) w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino, b) w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka.
a) w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,
b) w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka.
a) w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino,
b) w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka.
1) w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice;
2) w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka;
3) w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki.
1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Krasne, Ochoża, Orzechów Kolonia, Rudka Starościańska;
2. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości Bójki, Jamy, Kaznów, Kaznów Kolonia, Kolechowice Folwark, Kolechowice Kolonia, Rozkopaczew, Rudka Kijańska, Wólka Stara Kijańska;
3. w gminie Serniki miejscowości: Brzostówka, Wólka Zawieprzycka
4. w gminie Niedźwiada miejscowości: Brzeźnica Bychawska, Zabiele
1. w gminie Ludwin miejscowości Krzczeń, Rogóźno, Zezulin Drugi;
1. w gminie Sosnowica miejscowości: Stary Orzechowów, Nowy Orzechów, Walerianów;
2. w gminie Dębowa Kłoda miejscowości: Białka, Makoszka;
3. w gminie Parczew: Babianka, Tyśmienica, Buradów
1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary;
2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy;
3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice.
1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,b)w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice, b) w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,
b) w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice,
b) w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów,
2) w powiecie lubińskim:a)w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk a) w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk
a) w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk
a) w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk
3) w powiecie polkowickim:a)w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce, a) w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce,
a) w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce,
a) w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce,
4) w powiecie głogowskim:a)w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borkówb)w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,c)w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina. a) w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków b) w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów, c) w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.
a) w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków
b) w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,
c) w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.
a) w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków
b) w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów,
c) w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.
1) w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowości: Gola, Górczyna, Jędrzychowice, Kowalewo, Stare Drzewce, Szlichtyngowa, Zamysłów,
2) w gminie Wschowa, miejscowości: Kandlewo, Konradowo, Siedlnica, przysiółek Czerlejewo.
1) w powiecie górowskim:a)w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
a) w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów,
2) w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.
1) w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów.
1) w gminie Namysłów, miejscowości: Ligotka, Krasowice, Nowe Smarchowice, Smarchowice Śląskie, Smarchowice Wielkie, Łączany, Ziemiełowice, Jastrzębie, Woskowice Małe, Igłowice, Baldwinowice, Głuszyna, Smogorzów, Brzezinka, Pawłowice Namysłowskie;
2) w gminie Wilków, miejscowości: Wilków, Lubska, Dębnik, Wojciechów, Pągów, Idzikowice, Jakubowice;
3) w gminie Domaszowice, miejscowości: Gręboszów, Strzelce, Siemysłów, Woskowice Górne, Domaszowice.
1) w powiecie kępińskim, w gminie Rychtal, miejscowości: Dalanów, Darnowiec, Dworzyszcze, Krzyżowniki, Proszów, Rychtal, Sadogóra, Skoroszów, Zgorzelec;
2) w gminie Perzów, miejscowości: Zbyczyna, Ligota, Trębaczów, Posmyk.
1) w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków.
1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ciochowice, Pisarzowice, Toszek, Kotliszowice, Sarnów, Płużniczka, Wilkowiczki, Paczyna. Częściowo miejscowości: Paczynka, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulicy Pniowskiej, Boguszyce z wyłączeniem kolonii Zalesie oraz Pniów, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulic Górnej i Pniowskiej;
2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowości: Poniszowice, Słupsko, Chechło, Widów, Łany, Pławniowice, Bycina, Niewiesze. Częściowo miejscowości: Rudno i Rudziniec, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż linii kolejowej;
3) w gminie Wielowieś, miejscowości: Gajowice, Dąbrówka, Wiśnicze. Częściowo miejscowości: Zacharzowice, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż cieku wodnego „Pniówka”, Świbie w wyłączeniem części wsi o nazwie Napłatki.
1) w gminie Jemielnica, miejscowości: Barut – na południe od ul. Polnej i Marka Prawego, Centawa, Jemielnica-na południowy wschód od DW426;
2) w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Brzezina, Dziewkowice, Warmątowice, Strzelce Opolskie- dzielnica Mokre Łany;
3) w gminie Ujazd, miejscowości: Balcarzowice, Jaryszów, Niezdrowice – Wydzierów (ul. Wiejska 1-7), Nogowczyce, Olszowa – osada Komorniki, Sieroniowice, Stary Ujazd, Ujazd, Zimna Wódka
1) w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie;
2) w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.
1) w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka, Płużnica Wielka.
1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Borki-Kosiorki, Borki-Paduchy, Borki-Sołdy, Ciosny Daćbogi, Gostchorz, Kaczory, Nowe Okniny, Okniny-Podzdrój, Pluty, Stare Okniny, Śmiary, Tworki, Wiśniew, Wiśniew-Kolonia wyłącznie część miejscowości sięgającej do drogi krajowej nr 63;
2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Borki-Kosy, Borki-Wyrki, Bzów, Chromna, Grodzisk, Jasionka, Karcze, Ługi Wielkie, Pogonów, Rówce, Tchórzew, Tchórzew-Plewki, Wólka Kamienna, Zbuczyn, Zdany.
1) w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Biardy, Gołaszyn, Gręzówka, Gręzówka Kolonia, Klimki, Ławki, Łuków, Role, Suleje, Turze Rogi, Wólka Świątkowa, Zalesie;
2) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Dębowica, Karwów, Mikłusy, Nurzyna, Płudy, Popławy Rogale, Szaniawy-Matysy, Szaniawy-Poniaty, Świercze, Trzebieszów Drugi, Trzebieszów Kolonia, Trzebieszów Pierwszy, Wierzejki, Wylany, Zaolszynie, Zembry.
1) w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie;
2) w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.
1) w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna;
2) w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Krynka.
1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;b)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone. a) w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki; b) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo; c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone.
a) w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;
b) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;
c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone.
a) w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki;
b) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo;
c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone.
2) w powiecie nowomiejskim:a)w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;b)w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;c)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra. a) w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi; b) w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański; c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra.
a) w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;
b) w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;
c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra.
a) w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi;
b) w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański;
c) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra.
1) w powiecie iławskim:a)w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;b)w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;
b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
a) w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541;
b) w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone;
2) w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi.
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
County: Bihor
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105 DIOSIG – Com. DIOSIG 6.12.2024
County: Timiș
RO-HPAI(P)-2024-00003 SECAȘ – Com. SECAȘBARA – Com. BARADOBREȘTI – Com. BARALĂPUȘNIC – Com. BARAOHABA LUNGĂ – Com. OHABA LUNGĂIERȘNIC – Com. OHABA LUNGĂCLADOVA – Com. BETHAUSENREMETEA-LUNCĂ – Com. MĂNĂȘTIURLEUCUȘEȘTI – Com. BETHAUSENJUPANI – Com. TRAIAN VUIASUSANI – Com. TRAIAN VUIASUDRIAȘ – Com. TRAIAN VUIACLICIOVA – Com. BETHAUSENNEVRINCEA – Com. BETHAUSENVALEA LUNGĂ ROMÂNĂ – Com. COȘTEIUȚIPARI – Com. COȘTEIUPĂRU – Com. COȘTEIUBALINȚ – Com. BALINȚTÂRGOVIȘTE – Com. BALINȚPANIOVA – Com. GHIZELAFĂDIMAC – Com. BALINȚ 26.12.2024
CUTINA – Com. BETHAUSENBETHAUSEN – Com. BETHAUSENBODO – Com BALINȚ 18.12.2024 -26.12.2024
ADIS reference number of the outbreak Area comprising: Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
SK-HPAI(P)-2024-00007 municipalities of Nové Zámky, Bánov, Bešeňov, Branovo, Semerovo, Dubník ( the parts Dvor Mikuláš and Dvor Dubník), Pribeta, Bajč, Hurbanovo (the parts Nová Trstená, Pavlov Dvor), Nesvady (the part Aňala) 7.12.2024
municipality of Dvory nad Žitavou 29.11.2024 – 7.12.2024
Area comprising: Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a
Emilia-Romagna region:
—Municipality of Argenta (Ferrara)—Municipality of Codigoro (Ferrara)—Municipality of Comacchio (Ferrara)—Municipality of Copparo (Ferrara)—Municipality of Ferrara (Ferrara)—Municipality of Fiscaglia (Ferrara)—Municipality of Goro (Ferrara)—Municipality of Jolanda di Savoia (Ferrara)—Municipality of Lagosanto (Ferrara)—Municipality of Masi Torello (Ferrara)—Municipality of Mesola (Ferrara)—Municipality of Ostellato (Ferrara)—Municipality of Portomaggiore (Ferrara)—Municipality of Riva del Po (Ferrara)—Municipality of Tresignana (Ferrara)—Municipality of Voghiera (Ferrara) — Municipality of Argenta (Ferrara) — Municipality of Codigoro (Ferrara) — Municipality of Comacchio (Ferrara) — Municipality of Copparo (Ferrara) — Municipality of Ferrara (Ferrara) — Municipality of Fiscaglia (Ferrara) — Municipality of Goro (Ferrara) — Municipality of Jolanda di Savoia (Ferrara) — Municipality of Lagosanto (Ferrara) — Municipality of Masi Torello (Ferrara) — Municipality of Mesola (Ferrara) — Municipality of Ostellato (Ferrara) — Municipality of Portomaggiore (Ferrara) — Municipality of Riva del Po (Ferrara) — Municipality of Tresignana (Ferrara) — Municipality of Voghiera (Ferrara) 31.1.2025
— Municipality of Argenta (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Codigoro (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Comacchio (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Copparo (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Ferrara (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Fiscaglia (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Goro (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Jolanda di Savoia (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Lagosanto (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Masi Torello (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Mesola (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Ostellato (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Portomaggiore (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Riva del Po (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Tresignana (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Voghiera (Ferrara)
Lombardia region:
—Municipality of Antegnate (Bergamo)—Municipality of Bagnatica (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Barbata (Bergamo)—Municipality of Bariano (Bergamo)—Municipality of Bolgare (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Calcinate (Bergamo)—Municipality of Calcio (Bergamo)—Municipality of Castelli Calepio (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Cavernago (Bergamo)—Municipality of Cividate al Piano (Bergamo)—Municipality of Cologno al Serio (Bergamo)—Municipality of Cortenuova (Bergamo)—Municipality of Costa di Mezzate (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Covo (Bergamo)—Municipality of Fara Olivana con Sola (Bergamo)—Municipality of Fontanella (Bergamo)—Municipality of Ghisalba (Bergamo)—Municipality of Grumello del Monte (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Isso (Bergamo)—Municipality of Martinengo (Bergamo)—Municipality of Morengo (Bergamo)—Municipality of Mornico al Serio (Bergamo)—Municipality of Pagazzano (Bergamo)—Municipality of Palosco (Bergamo)—Municipality of Pumenengo (Bergamo)—Municipality of Romano di Lombardia (Bergamo)—Municipality of Seriate (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Telgate (Bergamo) South of A4—Municipality of Torre Pallavicina (Bergamo)—Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia)—Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia)—Municipality of Azzano Mella (Brescia)—Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (Brescia)—Municipality of Barbariga (Brescia)—Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia)—Municipality of Berlingo (Brescia)—Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia)—Municipality of Borgosatollo (Brescia)—Municipality of Brandico (Brescia)—Municipality of Brescia (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Calcinato (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia)—Municipality of Capriano del Colle (Brescia)—Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia)—Municipality of Castegnato (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Castel Mella (Brescia)—Municipality of Castelcovati (Brescia)—Municipality of Castenedolo (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Castrezzato (Brescia)—Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Chiari (Brescia)—Municipality of Cigole (Brescia)—Municipality of Coccaglio (Brescia)—Municipality of Cologne (Brescia)—Municipality of Comezzano-Cizzago (Brescia)—Municipality of Corzano (Brescia)—Municipality of Dello (Brescia)—Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Erbusco (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia)—Municipality of Flero (Brescia)—Municipality of Gambara (Brescia)—Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia)—Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia)—Municipality of Isorella (Brescia)—Municipality of Leno (Brescia)—Municipality of Lograto (Brescia)—Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Longhena (Brescia)—Municipality of Maclodio (Brescia)—Municipality of Mairano (Brescia)—Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia)—Municipality of Milzano (Brescia)—Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia)—Municipality of Montirone (Brescia)—Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia)—Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia)—Municipality of Orzivecchi (Brescia)—Municipality of Ospitaletto (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Palazzolo sull'Oglio (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia)—Municipality of Pompiano (Brescia)—Municipality of Poncarale (Brescia)—Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia)—Municipality of Pontoglio (Brescia)—Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia)—Municipality of Quinzano d'Oglio (Brescia)—Municipality of Remedello (Brescia)—Municipality of Rezzato (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Roccafranca (Brescia)—Municipality of Roncadelle (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Rovato (Brescia) South of A4—Municipality of Rudiano (Brescia)—Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia)—Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia)—Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (Brescia)—Municipality of Seniga (Brescia)—Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (Brescia)—Municipality of Travagliato (Brescia)—Municipality of Trenzano (Brescia)—Municipality of Urago d'Oglio (Brescia)—Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia)—Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia)—Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia)—Municipality of Visano (Brescia)—Municipality of Camisano (Cremona)—Municipality of Casale Cremasco-Vidolasco (Cremona)—Municipality of Casaletto di Sopra (Cremona)—Municipality of Castel Gabbiano (Cremona)—Municipality of Soncino (Cremona) — Municipality of Antegnate (Bergamo) — Municipality of Bagnatica (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Barbata (Bergamo) — Municipality of Bariano (Bergamo) — Municipality of Bolgare (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Calcinate (Bergamo) — Municipality of Calcio (Bergamo) — Municipality of Castelli Calepio (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Cavernago (Bergamo) — Municipality of Cividate al Piano (Bergamo) — Municipality of Cologno al Serio (Bergamo) — Municipality of Cortenuova (Bergamo) — Municipality of Costa di Mezzate (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Covo (Bergamo) — Municipality of Fara Olivana con Sola (Bergamo) — Municipality of Fontanella (Bergamo) — Municipality of Ghisalba (Bergamo) — Municipality of Grumello del Monte (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Isso (Bergamo) — Municipality of Martinengo (Bergamo) — Municipality of Morengo (Bergamo) — Municipality of Mornico al Serio (Bergamo) — Municipality of Pagazzano (Bergamo) — Municipality of Palosco (Bergamo) — Municipality of Pumenengo (Bergamo) — Municipality of Romano di Lombardia (Bergamo) — Municipality of Seriate (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Telgate (Bergamo) South of A4 — Municipality of Torre Pallavicina (Bergamo) — Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia) — Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia) — Municipality of Azzano Mella (Brescia) — Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (Brescia) — Municipality of Barbariga (Brescia) — Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia) — Municipality of Berlingo (Brescia) — Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia) — Municipality of Borgosatollo (Brescia) — Municipality of Brandico (Brescia) — Municipality of Brescia (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Calcinato (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia) — Municipality of Capriano del Colle (Brescia) — Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia) — Municipality of Castegnato (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Castel Mella (Brescia) — Municipality of Castelcovati (Brescia) — Municipality of Castenedolo (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Castrezzato (Brescia) — Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Chiari (Brescia) — Municipality of Cigole (Brescia) — Municipality of Coccaglio (Brescia) — Municipality of Cologne (Brescia) — Municipality of Comezzano-Cizzago (Brescia) — Municipality of Corzano (Brescia) — Municipality of Dello (Brescia) — Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Erbusco (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia) — Municipality of Flero (Brescia) — Municipality of Gambara (Brescia) — Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia) — Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia) — Municipality of Isorella (Brescia) — Municipality of Leno (Brescia) — Municipality of Lograto (Brescia) — Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Longhena (Brescia) — Municipality of Maclodio (Brescia) — Municipality of Mairano (Brescia) — Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia) — Municipality of Milzano (Brescia) — Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia) — Municipality of Montirone (Brescia) — Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia) — Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia) — Municipality of Orzivecchi (Brescia) — Municipality of Ospitaletto (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Palazzolo sull'Oglio (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia) — Municipality of Pompiano (Brescia) — Municipality of Poncarale (Brescia) — Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia) — Municipality of Pontoglio (Brescia) — Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia) — Municipality of Quinzano d'Oglio (Brescia) — Municipality of Remedello (Brescia) — Municipality of Rezzato (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Roccafranca (Brescia) — Municipality of Roncadelle (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Rovato (Brescia) South of A4 — Municipality of Rudiano (Brescia) — Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia) — Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia) — Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (Brescia) — Municipality of Seniga (Brescia) — Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (Brescia) — Municipality of Travagliato (Brescia) — Municipality of Trenzano (Brescia) — Municipality of Urago d'Oglio (Brescia) — Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia) — Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia) — Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia) — Municipality of Visano (Brescia) — Municipality of Camisano (Cremona) — Municipality of Casale Cremasco-Vidolasco (Cremona) — Municipality of Casaletto di Sopra (Cremona) — Municipality of Castel Gabbiano (Cremona) — Municipality of Soncino (Cremona) 31.1.2025
— Municipality of Antegnate (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Bagnatica (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Barbata (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Bariano (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Bolgare (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Calcinate (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Calcio (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Castelli Calepio (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Cavernago (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Cividate al Piano (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Cologno al Serio (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Cortenuova (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Costa di Mezzate (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Covo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Fara Olivana con Sola (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Fontanella (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Ghisalba (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Grumello del Monte (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Isso (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Martinengo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Morengo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Mornico al Serio (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Pagazzano (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Palosco (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Pumenengo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Romano di Lombardia (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Seriate (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Telgate (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Torre Pallavicina (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia)
— Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia)
— Municipality of Azzano Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Barbariga (Brescia)
— Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Berlingo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Borgosatollo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Brandico (Brescia)
— Municipality of Brescia (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Calcinato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Capriano del Colle (Brescia)
— Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Castegnato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Castel Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Castelcovati (Brescia)
— Municipality of Castenedolo (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Castrezzato (Brescia)
— Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Chiari (Brescia)
— Municipality of Cigole (Brescia)
— Municipality of Coccaglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Cologne (Brescia)
— Municipality of Comezzano-Cizzago (Brescia)
— Municipality of Corzano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Dello (Brescia)
— Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Erbusco (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia)
— Municipality of Flero (Brescia)
— Municipality of Gambara (Brescia)
— Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia)
— Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Isorella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Leno (Brescia)
— Municipality of Lograto (Brescia)
— Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Longhena (Brescia)
— Municipality of Maclodio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Mairano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Milzano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia)
— Municipality of Montirone (Brescia)
— Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia)
— Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia)
— Municipality of Orzivecchi (Brescia)
— Municipality of Ospitaletto (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Palazzolo sull'Oglio (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pompiano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Poncarale (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pontoglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia)
— Municipality of Quinzano d'Oglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Remedello (Brescia)
— Municipality of Rezzato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Roccafranca (Brescia)
— Municipality of Roncadelle (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Rovato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Rudiano (Brescia)
— Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia)
— Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia)
— Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Seniga (Brescia)
— Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (Brescia)
— Municipality of Travagliato (Brescia)
— Municipality of Trenzano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Urago d'Oglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia)
— Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia)
— Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia)
— Municipality of Visano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Camisano (Cremona)
— Municipality of Casale Cremasco-Vidolasco (Cremona)
— Municipality of Casaletto di Sopra (Cremona)
— Municipality of Castel Gabbiano (Cremona)
— Municipality of Soncino (Cremona)
Veneto region:
—Municipality of Arzergrande (Padova)—Municipality of Bovolenta (Padova)—Municipality of Brugine (Padova)—Municipality of Candiana (Padova)—Municipality of Codevigo (Padova)—Municipality of Correzzola (Padova)—Municipality of Piove di Sacco (Padova)—Municipality of Pontelongo (Padova)—Municipality of Sant'Angelo di Piove di Sacco (Padova)—Municipality of Adria (Rovigo)—Municipality of Ariano nel Polesine (Rovigo)—Municipality of Corbola (Rovigo)—Municipality of Loreo (Rovigo)—Municipality of Papozze (Rovigo)—Municipality of Pettorazza Grimani (Rovigo)—Municipality of Porto Tolle (Rovigo)—Municipality of Porto Viro (Rovigo)—Municipality of Rosolina (Rovigo)—Municipality of Taglio di Po (Rovigo)—Municipality of Campagna Lupia (Venezia)—Municipality of Campolongo Maggiore (Venezia)—Municipality of Camponogara (Venezia)—Municipality of Cavarzere (Venezia)—Municipality of Chioggia (Venezia)—Municipality of Cona (Venezia)—Municipality of Dolo (Venezia) South of A4—Municipality of Fiesso d'Artico (Venezia)—Municipality of Fossò (Venezia)—Municipality of Mira (Venezia) South of A4—Municipality of Mirano (Venezia) South of A4—Municipality of Pianiga (Venezia) South of A4—Municipality of Stra (Venezia)—Municipality of Venezia (Venezia) South of A4—Municipality of Vigonovo (Venezia) — Municipality of Arzergrande (Padova) — Municipality of Bovolenta (Padova) — Municipality of Brugine (Padova) — Municipality of Candiana (Padova) — Municipality of Codevigo (Padova) — Municipality of Correzzola (Padova) — Municipality of Piove di Sacco (Padova) — Municipality of Pontelongo (Padova) — Municipality of Sant'Angelo di Piove di Sacco (Padova) — Municipality of Adria (Rovigo) — Municipality of Ariano nel Polesine (Rovigo) — Municipality of Corbola (Rovigo) — Municipality of Loreo (Rovigo) — Municipality of Papozze (Rovigo) — Municipality of Pettorazza Grimani (Rovigo) — Municipality of Porto Tolle (Rovigo) — Municipality of Porto Viro (Rovigo) — Municipality of Rosolina (Rovigo) — Municipality of Taglio di Po (Rovigo) — Municipality of Campagna Lupia (Venezia) — Municipality of Campolongo Maggiore (Venezia) — Municipality of Camponogara (Venezia) — Municipality of Cavarzere (Venezia) — Municipality of Chioggia (Venezia) — Municipality of Cona (Venezia) — Municipality of Dolo (Venezia) South of A4 — Municipality of Fiesso d'Artico (Venezia) — Municipality of Fossò (Venezia) — Municipality of Mira (Venezia) South of A4 — Municipality of Mirano (Venezia) South of A4 — Municipality of Pianiga (Venezia) South of A4 — Municipality of Stra (Venezia) — Municipality of Venezia (Venezia) South of A4 — Municipality of Vigonovo (Venezia) 31.1.2025
— Municipality of Arzergrande (Padova)
— Municipality of Bovolenta (Padova)
— Municipality of Brugine (Padova)
— Municipality of Candiana (Padova)
— Municipality of Codevigo (Padova)
— Municipality of Correzzola (Padova)
— Municipality of Piove di Sacco (Padova)
— Municipality of Pontelongo (Padova)
— Municipality of Sant'Angelo di Piove di Sacco (Padova)
— Municipality of Adria (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Ariano nel Polesine (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Corbola (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Loreo (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Papozze (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Pettorazza Grimani (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Porto Tolle (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Porto Viro (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Rosolina (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Taglio di Po (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Campagna Lupia (Venezia)
— Municipality of Campolongo Maggiore (Venezia)
— Municipality of Camponogara (Venezia)
— Municipality of Cavarzere (Venezia)
— Municipality of Chioggia (Venezia)
— Municipality of Cona (Venezia)
— Municipality of Dolo (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Fiesso d'Artico (Venezia)
— Municipality of Fossò (Venezia)
— Municipality of Mira (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Mirano (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Pianiga (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Stra (Venezia)
— Municipality of Venezia (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Vigonovo (Venezia)
— Municipality of Argenta (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Codigoro (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Comacchio (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Copparo (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Ferrara (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Fiscaglia (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Goro (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Jolanda di Savoia (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Lagosanto (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Masi Torello (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Mesola (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Ostellato (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Portomaggiore (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Riva del Po (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Tresignana (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Voghiera (Ferrara)
— Municipality of Antegnate (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Bagnatica (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Barbata (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Bariano (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Bolgare (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Calcinate (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Calcio (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Castelli Calepio (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Cavernago (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Cividate al Piano (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Cologno al Serio (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Cortenuova (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Costa di Mezzate (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Covo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Fara Olivana con Sola (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Fontanella (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Ghisalba (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Grumello del Monte (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Isso (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Martinengo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Morengo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Mornico al Serio (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Pagazzano (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Palosco (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Pumenengo (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Romano di Lombardia (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Seriate (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Telgate (Bergamo) South of A4
— Municipality of Torre Pallavicina (Bergamo)
— Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia)
— Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia)
— Municipality of Azzano Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Barbariga (Brescia)
— Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Berlingo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Borgosatollo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Brandico (Brescia)
— Municipality of Brescia (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Calcinato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Capriano del Colle (Brescia)
— Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Castegnato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Castel Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Castelcovati (Brescia)
— Municipality of Castenedolo (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Castrezzato (Brescia)
— Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Chiari (Brescia)
— Municipality of Cigole (Brescia)
— Municipality of Coccaglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Cologne (Brescia)
— Municipality of Comezzano-Cizzago (Brescia)
— Municipality of Corzano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Dello (Brescia)
— Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Erbusco (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia)
— Municipality of Flero (Brescia)
— Municipality of Gambara (Brescia)
— Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia)
— Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia)
— Municipality of Isorella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Leno (Brescia)
— Municipality of Lograto (Brescia)
— Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Longhena (Brescia)
— Municipality of Maclodio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Mairano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Milzano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia)
— Municipality of Montirone (Brescia)
— Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia)
— Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia)
— Municipality of Orzivecchi (Brescia)
— Municipality of Ospitaletto (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Palazzolo sull'Oglio (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pompiano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Poncarale (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pontoglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia)
— Municipality of Quinzano d'Oglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Remedello (Brescia)
— Municipality of Rezzato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Roccafranca (Brescia)
— Municipality of Roncadelle (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Rovato (Brescia) South of A4
— Municipality of Rudiano (Brescia)
— Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia)
— Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia)
— Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Seniga (Brescia)
— Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (Brescia)
— Municipality of Travagliato (Brescia)
— Municipality of Trenzano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Urago d'Oglio (Brescia)
— Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia)
— Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia)
— Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia)
— Municipality of Visano (Brescia)
— Municipality of Camisano (Cremona)
— Municipality of Casale Cremasco-Vidolasco (Cremona)
— Municipality of Casaletto di Sopra (Cremona)
— Municipality of Castel Gabbiano (Cremona)
— Municipality of Soncino (Cremona)
— Municipality of Arzergrande (Padova)
— Municipality of Bovolenta (Padova)
— Municipality of Brugine (Padova)
— Municipality of Candiana (Padova)
— Municipality of Codevigo (Padova)
— Municipality of Correzzola (Padova)
— Municipality of Piove di Sacco (Padova)
— Municipality of Pontelongo (Padova)
— Municipality of Sant'Angelo di Piove di Sacco (Padova)
— Municipality of Adria (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Ariano nel Polesine (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Corbola (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Loreo (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Papozze (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Pettorazza Grimani (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Porto Tolle (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Porto Viro (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Rosolina (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Taglio di Po (Rovigo)
— Municipality of Campagna Lupia (Venezia)
— Municipality of Campolongo Maggiore (Venezia)
— Municipality of Camponogara (Venezia)
— Municipality of Cavarzere (Venezia)
— Municipality of Chioggia (Venezia)
— Municipality of Cona (Venezia)
— Municipality of Dolo (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Fiesso d'Artico (Venezia)
— Municipality of Fossò (Venezia)
— Municipality of Mira (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Mirano (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Pianiga (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Stra (Venezia)
— Municipality of Venezia (Venezia) South of A4
— Municipality of Vigonovo (Venezia)
Area comprising: Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a
W województwie wielkopolskim:
1)w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowości: Czerlejnko, Trzek, Strumiany, Sokolniki Klonowskie, Libartowo, Siedlec, Brzeźno, Antonin;2)w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo: miejscowości: Tulce, Komorniki;3)w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowości: Dachowa, Robakowo, Borówiec, Skrzynki, Mościenica, Bnin, Czołowo, Błażejewo;4)w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowość: Dzierżnica;5)w powiecie średzkim, gmina Nowe Miasto nad Wartą na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym;6)w powiecie średzkim, część gminy Zaniemyśl na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym;7)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Starczanowo, Stroszki, Podstolice, Chwałszyce, Stępocin, Opatówko;8)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Września, Żerniki, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo, Bierzglinek, Białężyce, Chocicza Wielka;9)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec;10)w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowość: Pyzdry;11)w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Chrzan, Laski, Bieździadów, Rozmarynów, Brzostków, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Komorze Przybysławskie, Paruchów, Antonin, Przybysław;12)w powiecie śremskim, w gminie Książ Wlkp., miejscowości: Gogolewo, Gogolewko, Świączyń. 1) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowości: Czerlejnko, Trzek, Strumiany, Sokolniki Klonowskie, Libartowo, Siedlec, Brzeźno, Antonin; 2) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo: miejscowości: Tulce, Komorniki; 3) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowości: Dachowa, Robakowo, Borówiec, Skrzynki, Mościenica, Bnin, Czołowo, Błażejewo; 4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowość: Dzierżnica; 5) w powiecie średzkim, gmina Nowe Miasto nad Wartą na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym; 6) w powiecie średzkim, część gminy Zaniemyśl na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym; 7) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Starczanowo, Stroszki, Podstolice, Chwałszyce, Stępocin, Opatówko; 8) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Września, Żerniki, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo, Bierzglinek, Białężyce, Chocicza Wielka; 9) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec; 10) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowość: Pyzdry; 11) w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Chrzan, Laski, Bieździadów, Rozmarynów, Brzostków, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Komorze Przybysławskie, Paruchów, Antonin, Przybysław; 12) w powiecie śremskim, w gminie Książ Wlkp., miejscowości: Gogolewo, Gogolewko, Świączyń. 8.12.2024
1) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowości: Czerlejnko, Trzek, Strumiany, Sokolniki Klonowskie, Libartowo, Siedlec, Brzeźno, Antonin;
2) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo: miejscowości: Tulce, Komorniki;
3) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowości: Dachowa, Robakowo, Borówiec, Skrzynki, Mościenica, Bnin, Czołowo, Błażejewo;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowość: Dzierżnica;
5) w powiecie średzkim, gmina Nowe Miasto nad Wartą na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym;
6) w powiecie średzkim, część gminy Zaniemyśl na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym;
7) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Starczanowo, Stroszki, Podstolice, Chwałszyce, Stępocin, Opatówko;
8) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Września, Żerniki, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo, Bierzglinek, Białężyce, Chocicza Wielka;
9) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec;
10) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowość: Pyzdry;
11) w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Chrzan, Laski, Bieździadów, Rozmarynów, Brzostków, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Komorze Przybysławskie, Paruchów, Antonin, Przybysław;
12) w powiecie śremskim, w gminie Książ Wlkp., miejscowości: Gogolewo, Gogolewko, Świączyń.
1) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowości: Czerlejnko, Trzek, Strumiany, Sokolniki Klonowskie, Libartowo, Siedlec, Brzeźno, Antonin;
2) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo: miejscowości: Tulce, Komorniki;
3) w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowości: Dachowa, Robakowo, Borówiec, Skrzynki, Mościenica, Bnin, Czołowo, Błażejewo;
4) w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowość: Dzierżnica;
5) w powiecie średzkim, gmina Nowe Miasto nad Wartą na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym;
6) w powiecie średzkim, część gminy Zaniemyśl na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym;
7) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Starczanowo, Stroszki, Podstolice, Chwałszyce, Stępocin, Opatówko;
8) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Września, Żerniki, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo, Bierzglinek, Białężyce, Chocicza Wielka;
9) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec;
10) w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowość: Pyzdry;
11) w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Chrzan, Laski, Bieździadów, Rozmarynów, Brzostków, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Komorze Przybysławskie, Paruchów, Antonin, Przybysław;
12) w powiecie śremskim, w gminie Książ Wlkp., miejscowości: Gogolewo, Gogolewko, Świączyń.
* In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Windsor Framework (see Joint Declaration No 1/2023 of the Union and the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of 24 March 2023,OJ L 102, 17.4.2023, p. 87) in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Framework, for the purposes of this Annex, references to Member State include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (1), and in particular Article 259(1), point (c), thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and can have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept.
(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes the legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (2) supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI.
(3) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 (3) was adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down emergency measures at Union level in relation to outbreaks of HPAI.
(4) More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 provides that the protection, surveillance and further restricted zones, established by the Member States concerned following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection, surveillance and further restricted zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.
(5) The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2917 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry in Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Romania, which needed to be reflected in that Annex.
(6) Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2917, Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have notified the Commission of outbreaks of HPAI, in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the Brno-Venkov, Klatovy and Mladá Boleslav districts in Czechia, in the Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Schleswig Holstein states in Germany, in the Landes department in France, in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lombardia and Veneto regions in Italy, in the Bács-Kiskun, Csongrád-Csanád, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok and Somogy counties in Hungary, in the Gelderland province in the Netherlands, in the Dolnośląskie, Lubelskie, Mazowieckie, Opolskie, Śląskie and Wielkopolskie voivodeships in Poland and in the Timiș county in Romania.
(7) In addition, one of the outbreaks confirmed by Germany is located in close proximity to the border with the Netherlands. Accordingly, the competent authorities of those two Member States have duly collaborated with regard to the establishment of the necessary surveillance zone, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, as the surveillance zone extends into the territory of the Netherlands.
(8) Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around the outbreaks.
(9) The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania, and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillances zone established by those Member States are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed.
(10) In the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447, there are currently no areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for the Netherlands.
(11) In 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 rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania, the protection and surveillance zones duly established by those Member States in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687.
(12) Therefore, the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Romania in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 should be amended.
(13) In addition, protection and surveillance zones should be listed for the Netherlands in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447.
(14) Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein.
(15) Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(16) Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible.
(17) 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:
The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/2447 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Part A

Protection zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Article 1, point (a), and Article 2:

Member State: Bulgaria

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Yambol region
BG-HPAI(P)-2024-00018
Tundzha municipality:
Bolyarsko
8.12.2024

Member State: Czechia

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Central Bohemian Region:
CZ-HPAI(NON-P)-2024-00044
Dřísy (633119); Hlavenec (638960); Konětopy (669059); Kostelní Hlavno (670511); Lhota u Dřís (680931); Mečeříž (692395); Sudovo Hlavno (758892).
19.12.2024
Pilsen Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00009
Černíč u Hradešic (647411); Hradešice (647420); Smrkovec u Hradešic (647438); Letovy (695815); Miřenice (695823); Nalžovské Hory (701521); Otěšín (695840); Ústaleč (774812); Velenovy (777803); Tužice (791326); Plichtice (791300); Zavlekov (791334).
12.12.2024
South Moravian Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00010
Bratčice (609561); Hrušovany u Brna (648833); Kupařovice (677582); Ledce u Židlochovic (679682); Malešovice (690872); Medlov (692590); Němčičky (703052); Odrovice (709077); Smolín (751090); Sobotovice (752142); Cvrčovice u Pohořelic (618152) – pouze část katastrálního území východně od silnice č. 395. 14.12.2024

Member State: Germany

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00022
Landkreis Rostock
—
Amt Tessin
Stadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger Mühle
Gemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und Barkvieren
Gemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf
21.12.2024
NIEDERSACHSEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00021
Landkreis Aurich
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204. Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Dornum.
Landkreis Wittmund
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204. Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Holtgast, Schweindorf und Utarp.
19.12.2024
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00019
Kreis Kleve
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 6.214183 51.822386); betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden
—
Bedburg-Hau,
—
Emmerich am Rhein,
—
Kalkar und
—
Kleve
12.12.2024
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00020
Nordfriesland
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten
8.924238/54.583847 Teile der Gemeinden Reußenköge, Bredstedt, Breklum, Struckum und Hattstedtermarsch
15.12.2024

Member State: France

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Département Allier (03):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00015
SAINT PLAISIR
5.12.2024
Département Landes (40):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00014
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
Orist
Pey
Port-de-Lanne
Saint-Étienne-d’Orthe
Saint-Jean-de-Marsacq
Saint-Lon-les-Mines
Sainte-Marie-de-Gosse
Saint-Martin-de-Hinx
5.12.2024

Member State: Italy

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Veneto region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00015
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.905288528, E 12.057325217
7.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.721413, E 12.368124
9.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00017
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.4582909563169, E 12.0665245845646
11.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00019
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.46053010, E 12.05291290
14.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00022
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.7737, E 12.432319
20.12.2024
Lombardia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00014
The area of the parts of Lombardia contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.187255, E 10.33539
14.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00018
The area of the parts of Lombardia contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.17252, E 10.351436
15.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00021
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.380577, E 9.450603
20.12.2024
Friuli Venezia Giulia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00020
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00020) contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.822093, E 13.383938
15.12.2024

Member State: Hungary

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00051
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00086
Martfű és Tiszaföldvár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.988248 és a 20.287832, valamint a 46.996654 és a 20.253719 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
26.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167
Szászberek, Szolnok, Újszász, Vezseny és Zagyvarékas települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
8.12.2024
Hajdú-Bihar vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105
Kokad és Létavértes települések közigazgatási területének a 47.387114 és a 21.911849, a 47.379120 és a 21.902221, a 47.381722 és a 21.905715, valamint a 47.378793 és a 21.889210 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
28.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104
Folyás és Polgár települések közigazgatási területének a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
1.12.2024
Csongrád-Csanád vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00044-00046
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00048
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00056
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00061-00064
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00076
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00078
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00089
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00091
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00101
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00111
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00114
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00122
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00126
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00128-00129
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00131-00133
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00135
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00137
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00141
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00152
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00159
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00161
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00169-00170
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00173-00176
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00181
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00183
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00185
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189
Ásotthalom, Balástya, Csengele, Forráskút, Kistelek, Ópusztaszer, Öttömös, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Ruzsa és Üllés települések teljes közigazgatási területe.
19.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00190
Szentes közigazgatási területének a 46.648143 és a 20.284182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
19.12.2024
Bács-Kiskun vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00026
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00042
Fülöpszállás, Izsák és Soltszentimre települések közigazgatási területének a 46.771020 és a 19.266569 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
19.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00030
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00033-00041
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00043-00050
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00064
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067-00072
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00074-00085
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00096
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00098-00103
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00122
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00132
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00134-00144
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00147-00154
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00156-00164
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00168-00185
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189
Bácsalmás, Bácsszőlős, Balotaszállás, Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Csikéria, Csólyospálos, Gátér, Harkakötöny, Imrehegy, Jakabszállás, Jánoshalma, Jászszentlászló, Kaskantyú, Kecel, Kelebia, Kiskőrös, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kiskunhalas, Kiskunmajsa, Kisszállás, Kömpöc, Kunbaja, Kunfehértó, Mélykút, Móricgát, Orgovány, Páhi, Pálmonostora, Petőfiszállás, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tataháza, Tázlár, Tompa és Zsana települések teljes közigazgatási területe.
Borota és Kéleshalom települések közigazgatási területének a 46.308760 és a 19.291230 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
19.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00123
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00145-00146
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00155
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00186-00187
Borota, Csávoly és Rém települések közigazgatási területének a 46.254915 és a 19.131604, a 46.257157 és a 19.128105, a 46.256205 és a 19.125921, valamint a 46.261845 és a 19.129315 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
19.12.2024
Komárom-Esztergom vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165
Bábolna, Kerékteleki és Tárkány települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
12.12.2024
Baranya vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150
Egyházaskozár, Mekényes és Szárász települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
6.12.2024
Tolna vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150
Györe, Izmény, Kisvejke, Lengyel és Mucsfa települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
6.12.2024
Győr-Moson-Sopron vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165
Bana és Rétalap települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
12.12.2024
Somogy vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00166
Kadarkút, Lábod, Mike és Nagykorpád települések közigazgatási területének a 46.238856 és a 17.538140GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
8.12.2024

Member State: the Netherlands

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Provinces Gelderland and Flevoland
NL-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
Those parts of the provinces Gelderland and Flevoland contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long / 5.54 lat 52.27
11.12.2024

Member State: Austria

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Niederösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00002
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00004
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, St. Peter in der Au, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
1.12.2024
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00006
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St.Peter an der Au, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs (Stadt), Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
6.12.2024
Niederösterreich und Oberösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00005
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Ernsthofen, St. Valentin innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
Bezirk Linz-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Hargelsberg, Kronstorf innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
4.12.2024

Member State: Poland

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00030
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00033
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00034
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00035
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00036
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00039
W województwie wielkopolskim: 1)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo; 2)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka; 3)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo; 4)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo; 5)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo.
10.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00037
W województwie dolnośląskim: 1)
w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice; 2)
w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka; 3)
w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki.
2.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00038
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00041
W województwie lubelskim:
W powiecie lubartowskim: 1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary; 2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy; 3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice.
12.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00040
W województwie dolnośląskim: 1)
w powiecie górowskim: a)
w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, 2)
w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.
W województwie lubuskim: 1)
w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów.
13.12.2024
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00043
W województwie opolskim: 1)
w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków.
11.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00042
W województwie śląskim, w powiecie gliwickim: 1)
w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie; 2)
w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.
W województwie opolskim: 1)
w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka,
Płużnica Wielka
16.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00043
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00045
W województwie mazowieckim, w powiecie siedleckim: 1)
w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie; 2)
w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.
W województwie lubelskim, w powiecie łukowskim: 1)
w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna; 2)
w gminie Łuków, miejscowość: Krynka.
20.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00044
W województwie warmińsko-mazurskim: 1)
w powiecie iławskim: a)
w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b)
w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; 2)
w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi.
19.12.2024

Member State: Slovakia

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
SK-HPAI(P)-2024-00007
municipality of Dvory nad Žitavou
28.11.2024

Member State: Romania

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
County: Timiș
RO-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
CUTINA – Com. BETHAUSEN
BETHAUSEN – Com. BETHAUSEN
BODO – Com BALINȚ
17.12.2024

Part B

Surveillance zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Article 1, point (a), and Article 3:

Member State: Bulgaria

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Yambol region
BG-HPAI(P)-2024-00018
Tundzha municipality:
—
Bezmer
—
Hadzhidimitrovo
—
Botevo
—
Boyadzhik
—
Roza
—
Galabintsi
Yambol municipality:
—
Yambol
17.12.2024
Tundzha municipality:
—
Bolyarsko
9.12.2024 -17.12.2024
Sliven region
BG-HPAI(P)-2024-00018
Sliven municipality:
—
Chokoba
—
Skobelevo
—
Bozadzhii
17.12.2024

Member State: Czechia

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Pilsen Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00009
Břežany (614891); Budětice (615307); Lipová Lhota (615315); Vlkonice (784028); Číhaň (623571); Plánička (623598); Čímice u Sušice (623911); Dobršín (759635); Hejná (638161); Hnačov (721450); Horažďovická Lhota (770213); Třebomyslice u Horažďovic (770221); Zářečí u Horažďovic (641928); Čejkovy (619027); Čermná (619728); Hrádek u Sušice (647276); Tedražice (647284); Zbynice (619035); Habartice u Obytců (708852); Kvaslice (797901); Boříkovy (608220); Brod (668397); Buršice (668401); Kolinec (668419); Lukoviště (689068); Mlázovy (697281); Ujčín (668443); Vlčkovice u Kolince (668451); Kovčín (671541); Hliněný Újezd (639206); Malé Hydčice (639214); Malý Bor (691399); Týnec u Hliněného Újezdu (639222); Maňovice u Pačejova (717282); Bystré u Klatov (667609); Lešišov (698245); Mokrosuky (698253); Loužná (700657); Milčice (671550); Myslív (700665); Nový Dvůr u Myslíva (700681); Krutěnice (774804); Neprochovy (703524); Těchonice (765457); Žďár u Nalžovských Hor (765465); Nehodiv (700673); Olšany u Kvášňovic (678236); Pačejov (717304); Strážovice u Pačejova (717312); Týřovice u Pačejova (717321); Velešice u Pačejova (717339); Bližanovy (687588); Křížovice u Číhaně (623580); Kvasetice (687596); Lovčice u Klatov (687600); Plánice (721476); Pohoří u Lovčic (687618); Štipoklasy u Lovčic (687626); Vracov u Číhaně (623601); Zdebořice (623610); Bojanovice pod Rabím (737097); Čepice (737101); Rabí (737119); Malá Chmelná (651915); Sušice nad Otavou (759601); Velká Chmelná (651923); Újezd u Plánice (773972); Velké Hydčice (778834); Jetenovice (779521); Skránčice (791318); Vlčnov u Zavlekova (783889); Zborovy (721484); Žichovice (796930) 21. 12. 2024
Černíč u Hradešic (647411); Hradešice (647420); Smrkovec u Hradešic (647438); Letovy (695815); Miřenice (695823); Nalžovské Hory (701521); Otěšín (695840); Ústaleč (774812); Velenovy (777803); Tužice (791326); Plichtice (791300); Zavlekov (791334).
13.12.2024- 21.12. 2024
South Moravian Region:
CZ-HPAI(P)-2024-00010
Blučina (605808); Branišovice (609374); Dolní Kounice (629286); Hajany (636541); Hlína u Ivančic (639184); Holasice (640778); Ivaň (655708); Budkovice (615595); Jezeřany (659428); Maršovice (659436); Kubšice (676888); Loděnice u Moravského Krumlova (686344); Mělčany u Ivančic (692786); Moravské Bránice (698890); Moravský Krumlov (699128); Nosislav (704865); Nové Bránice (706043); Olbramovice u Moravského Krumlova (709930); Opatovice u Rajhradu (711527); Ořechov (712612); Nová Ves u Pohořelic (705667); Pohořelice nad Jihlavou (724866); Popovice u Rajhradu (725854); Pravlov (733016); Prštice (733954); Přibice (735311); Přísnotice (736261); Rajhrad (738921); Rajhradice (738956); Silůvky (747815); Syrovice (761834); Šumice (764248); Trboušany (768057); Unkovice (774642); Vedrovice (777536); Zábrdovice u Vedrovic (798754); Vlasatice (783307); Vojkovice u Židlochovic (784567); Vranovice nad Svratkou (785512); Žabčice (794121); Želešice (795968); Židlochovice (796701); Cvrčovice u Pohořelic (618152) – pouze část katastrálního území západně od silnice č. 395; Modřice (697931) – pouze část katastrálního území západně od silnice E461 a jižně od silnice č. 15. 23.12.2024
Bratčice (609561); Hrušovany u Brna (648833); Kupařovice (677582); Ledce u Židlochovic (679682); Malešovice (690872); Medlov (692590); Němčičky (703052); Odrovice (709077); Smolín (751090); Sobotovice (752142); Cvrčovice u Pohořelic (618152) – pouze část katastrálního území východně od silnice č. 395. 15.12.2024 – 23.12.2024
Central Bohemian Region:
CZ-HPAI(NON-P)-2024-00044
Nové Benátky (602108); Obodř (602116); Staré Benátky (602124); Borek nad Labem (607517); Brandýs nad Labem (609048); Popovice u Brandýsa nad Labem (609251); Stará Boleslav (609170); Brázdim (609773); Byšice (617172); Čečelice (618772); Dolní Slivno (630152); Slivínko (630161); Dřevčice u Brandýsa nad Labem (632937); Horní Slivno (644111); Hřivno (649171); Jiřice (602078); Káraný (708020); Kochánky (667731); Jiřice u Kostelce nad Labem (661031); Kostelec nad Labem (670171); Rudeč (670189); Košátky (670740); Kojovice (667919); Kropáčova Vrutice (675041); Krpy (675091); Střížovice (758086); Sušno (675059); Křenek (675806); Lázně Toušeň (767859); Liblice (617199); Vysoká Libeň (788066); Benátecká Vrutice (602060); Mratín (700118); Nedomice (717100); Lobkovice (703664); Nový Vestec (708038); Ovčáry u Dřís (717118); Polerady u Prahy (725218); Předměřice nad Jizerou (734284); Sedlec u Benátek nad Jizerou (746665); Otradovice (748366); Skorkov (748382); Sluhy (750751); Sojovice (752169); Stará Lysá (753807); Chrást u Tišic (767344); Kozly u Tišic (767352); Tišice (767361); Tuřice (771856); Přívory (736376); Všetaty (787485); Zápy (609226); Martinov (791008); Záryby (791016); Zdětín u Benátek nad Jizerou (792373); Čelákovice (619159) – severozápadní část katastrálního území u ČOV ohraničená na jihovýchodě spojnicí mezi koncem vodní nádrže Mezi Mosty a řekou Labe; Lysá nad Labem (689505) – severozápadní část katastrálního území ohraničená potokem Mlynařice od řeky Labe k ulici Ke Karlovu a dále ulicí Stržiště, Sojovická, Československé armády a Ke Vrutici; Malý Újezd (691437) – jihovýchodní část katastrálního území na severozápadě ohraničené silnicí vedoucí mezi obcí Kly a částí obce Malý Újezd – Vavřineč; Mělnické Vtelno (692808) – jižní část katastrálního území na severu ohraničené silnicí č. 16 procházející obcí.
28.12.2024
Dřísy (633119); Hlavenec (638960); Konětopy (669059); Kostelní Hlavno (670511); Lhota u Dřís (680931); Mečeříž (692395); Sudovo Hlavno (758892).
20.12.2024 – 28.12.2024

Member State: Germany

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
BAYERN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00017
Landkreis Altötting
—
Gesamtes Gemeindegebiet der Gemeinden Garching an der Alz, Feichten an der Alz, Tyrlaching, Kirchweidach, Halsbach,
—
Teile der Gemeinden Burgkirchen an der Alz, Kastl, Unterneukirchen und Tüssling, die sich innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10km um den Mittelpunkt mit den Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“befinden, sowie die folgenden Ortsteile:
—
Gemeinde Burgkirchen an der Alz: Aichelberg, Dorfen, Enhof, Großriedl, Kleinriedl,
—
Gemeinde Kastl: Stepf, Schönwink,
—
Gemeinde Unterneukrichen: Maierhof,
—
Gemeinde Tüssling: Waltenberg.
Landkreis Traunstein
—
Teile der Gemeinden Engelsberg, Tacherting, Kienberg, Palling sowie der Städte Trostberg und Tittmoning die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“ sind.
Landkreis Mühldorf a. Inn
—
Teile der Gemeinden Oberneukirchen, Polling und Taufkirchen, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 48° 6`37.9368“ N, 12° 35`17.268“sind.
27.11.2024
Landkreis Altötting
—
Gemeinde Garching an der Alz:
Beginnend an der Lankreisgrenze das Gebiet östlich der AÖ9, dann südlich der ST 2355 bis zur Abzweigung nach Am Winklhart, dann östlich einer Linie die Ortsteile Am Winklhart, Egg und Winklhart einschließend, dann das bebaute Kerngebiet Garching an der Alz südlich des Waldgebietes „Garchinger Hart“, bis zur Abzweigung B299 und Frank-Caro-Straße, dann westlich einer Linie die Alz überquerend bis zur Gemeindegrenze bei Neukirchen a. d. Alz, die Ortsteile Oberlindach und Wimm einschließend. Alle restlichen Gemeindebereiche innerhalb des beschriebenen Bereichs,
—
Gemeinde Kirchweidach:
Alle Ortsteile im Gebiet westlich der AÖ25, ab Neukirchen an der Alz und nördlich der Bahnstrecke Garching-Kirchweidach.
—
Gemeinde Feichten an der Alz:
—
Das gesamte Gemeindegebiet nördlich der AÖ23 bis zur Landkreisgrenze an der Alzbrücke, sowie das Gebiet nördlich der Erlenstraße und einer gedachten Linie nach Osten bis zur AÖ23
Landkreis Traunstein
—
Gemeinde Tacherting:
Ortsteile Straß, Aichmühle bei Tacherting, Schermühle,
—
Gemeinde Engelsberg:
Ortsteile Dunstenstein, Inhausen bei Engelsberg, Straß bei Offenham, Vogleck, Gießmühle, Offenham, Pächmann, Wiesmühl a.d. Alz, Pfarrhof, Wölklham
19.11.2024 – 27.11.2024
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00018
Landkreis Roth
—
Gemeinde Roth: Ortsteile Bernlohe, Unterheckenhofen, Untersteinbach a. d. Haide, Barnsdorf, Rothaurach,
—
Stadtgebiet Roth: Barnsdorfer Weg, Erlenweg, Unterer Weinbergweg, Weinbergweg, Westring, Röntgenstraße, Wattstraße, Dieselstraße, Ohmstraße, Boschweg, Franklinweg, Siemensstraße, Pinzigweg, Edisonweg, Abenberger Straße,
—
Gemeinde Büchenbach: Ortsteile Asbach, Aurau, Hebresmühle, Breitenlohe, Gauchsdorf, Neumühle, Götzenreuth, Schopfhof, Kühedorf, Ungerthal, Lohmühle,
—
Gemeinde Abenberg: Ortsteile Pflugsmühle, Wassermungenau, Ebersbach, Kapsdorf, Bechhofen, Kleinabenberg,
—
Gemeinde Kammerstein: Ortsteile Haag – nördlich der B 466, Schattenhof, Albersreuth, Günzersreuth, Rudelsdorf, Poppenreuth, Neppersreuth, Barthelmesaurach, Hasenmühle, Mildach, Haubenhof,
—
Gemeinde Spalt: Ortsteile Untererlbach, Theilenberg, Wernfels, Stiegelmühle, Höfstetten, Hohenrad, Nagelhof, Trautenfurt, Schnittling, Fünfbronn, Keilberg, Stockheim, Hagsbronn, Enderndorf, Ottmannsberg, Heiligenblut, Kaltenbrunn, Großweingarten, Egelmühle, Wasserzell, Straßenhaus, Steinfurt, Hügelmühle, Mosbach,
—
Gemeinde Georgensgmünd: Ortsteile Wernsbach, Petersgmünd, Friedrichsgmünd, Hauslach, Oberheckenhofen, Hämmerleinsmühle, Rittersbach, Mäbenberg, Weinmannsdorf,
—
Gemeinde Röttenbach: Ortsteile Unterbreitenlohe, Oberbreitenlohe, Mühlstetten, Niedermauk.
Landkreis Ansbach
—
Stadt Windsbach:
Das gesamte Stadgebiet Windsbach, sowie die Ortsteile Veitsaurach, Bertholdsdorf, Buckenmühle, Suddersdorf, Kettersbach, Brunn, Leipersloh, Moosbach, Retzendorf, Elpersdorf b. Windsbach, Schwalbenmühle, Wolfsau, Hergersbach, Hölzleinsmühle, Untereschenbach, Kugelmühle Winkelhaid und Thonhof, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56’37.71″ N49°12’55.91″ sind,
—
Gemeinde Mitteleschenbach:
Das Gewerbegebiet “Am Lohbuck”, sowie die Ortsteile Gersbach, Bremenhof, Käshof und Haselmühle, die über das in der Schutzzone beschriebene Gebiet im Landkreis Roth hinausgehen und innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten O10°56’37.71″ N49°12’55.91″ sind.
Landkreis Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen
—
Teile der Gemeinden Pleinfeld, Pfofeld, Absberg und Haundorf, die innerhalb des Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km liegen, dessen Mittelpunkt die GPS-Koordinaten 49° 12`55.9168“ N, 10° 56`37.71“O sind,
—
Gemeinde Pleinfeld: Ortsteile Stirn, Heinzenmühle, Hohenweiler, Erlingsdorf, Allmannsdorf, Birklein,
—
Gemeinde Absberg: Ortsteile Absberg, Griesbuck, Angerberg, Fallhaus, Schellhof, Igelsbach, Kalbensteinberg,
—
Gemeinde Haundorf: Ortsteile Obererlbach bei Mitteleschenbach, Thierhof, Gutzenmühle bei Kalbensteinberg, Neuhof bei Kalbensteinberg.
2.12.2024
Landkreis Roth
—
Gemeinde Abenberg:
Südliches Stadtgebiet Abenberg, Grenze verläuft von Windsbacher Straße, Marktplatz, Steinweg und Mühlweg, Küchelbach, Marienburg, Kloster, Schweinau,
Ortsteile Dürrenmungenau, Dürrenmungenau-Fischhau, Dürrenmungenau-Pippenhof, Dürrenmungenau-Weihermühle, Beerbach, Obersteinbach ob Gmünd, Untersteinbach ob Gmünd,
—
Gemeinde Spalt:
Ortsteile Engelhof, Güsseldorf, Massendorf
22.11.2024 – 2.12.2024
MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00022
Landkreis Rostock
—
Amt Tessin
Gemeinde Cammin mit den Ortsteilen Prangendorf, Weitendorf und Wohrenstorf
Gemeinde Gnewitz mit dem Ortsteil Neu Barkvieren
Gemeinde Grammow mit den Ortseilen Alt Strassow, Neu Strassow, Grammow, Neuhof und Recknitzberg
Gemeinde Nustrow mit dem Ortsteil Nustrow
Gemeinde Selpin mit den Ortsteilen Vogelsang, Reddersdorf, Bärenberg, Woltow, Selpin und Drüsewitz
Gemeinde Stubbendorf mit den Ortsteilen Stubbendorf und Ehmkendorf
Stadt Tessin und den Ortsteilen Helmstorf, Vilz und Klein Tessin
Gemeinde Thelkow mit den Ortsteilen Sophienhof, Thelkow, Kowalz, Liepen und Starkow
—
Gemeinde Sanitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften:
Sanitz, Niekrenz, Groß Lüsewitz, Oberhof, Vietow, Wehnendorf, Ausbau Niekrenz, Neu Wendorf, Horst, Teutendorf, Klein Wehnendorf, Klein Freienholz, Wendorf, Reppelin, Wendfeld, Groß Freienholz, Gubkow und Hohen Gubkow
—
Amt Gnoien
Gemeinde Behren Lübchin mit der Ortschaft Duckwitz
Gemeinde Walkendorf mit den Ortschaften Repnitz und Basse
Landkreis Vorpommern-Rügen
—
Gemeinde Dettmannsdorf
—
Gemeinde Lindholz mit dem Ortsteil Schabow
—
Stadt Marlow mit den Ortsteilen Dänschenburg, Carlsruhe, Neu Steinhorst, Alt Steinhorst, Brunstorf, Fahrenhaupt, Schulenberg, Kneese
30.12.2024
Landkreis Rostock
—
Amt Tessin
Stadt Tessin mit den Ortsteilen Neu Gramsdorf und Wolfsberger Mühle
Gemeinde Gnewitz mit den Ortsteilen Gnewitz und Barkvieren
Gemeinde Zarnewanz mit dem Ortsteilen Zarnewanz, Kleinhof und Stormstorf
22.12.2024-30.12.2024
NIEDERSACHSEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00021
Landkreis Aurich
10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204. Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Baltrum, Dornum und Großheide.
Landkreis Wittmund
10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204. Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Blomberg, Dunum, Esens, Eversmeerr, Holtgast, Langeoog, Moorweg, Neuharlingersiel, Nenndorf, Neuschoo, Ochtersum, Schweindorf, Stedesdorf, Utarp und Westerholt.
28.12.2024
Landkreis Aurich
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204. Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Dornum.
Landkreis Wittmund
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 7.483276, 53.648204. Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Holtgast, Schweindorf und Utarp.
19.12.2024 – 28.12.2024
NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00019
Kreis Kleve
10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 6.214183 51.822386); betroffen sind Teile der folgenden Gemeinden:
—
Bedburg-Hau (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
—
Emmerich am Rhein (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
—
Goch,
—
Kalkar (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
—
Kleve (über das Gebiet der Schutzzone hinausgehend),
—
Kranenburg und
—
Rees
21.12.2024
Kreis Kleve
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 6.214183 51.822386); betroffen sind Teile der folgenden Gemeinden:
—
Bedburg-Hau,
—
Emmerich am Rhein,
—
Kalkar und
—
Kleve
13.12.2024 – 21.12.2024
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00020
Nordfriesland
10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten
8.924238/54.583847. Die gesamte Gemeinde Sönnebüll, Almdorf sowie Teile der Gemeinden Reußenköge, Bredstedt, Breklum, Struckum, Hattstedtermarsch, Elisabeth-Sophien-Koog, Nordstrand, Husum, Wobbenbüll, Horstedt, Hattstedt, Arlewatt, Ahrenshöft, Bohmstedt, Drelsdorf, Vollstedt, Högel, Olderup, Bordelum, Langenhorn, Ockholm
24.12.2024
Nordfriesland
3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten
8.924238/54.583847 Teile der Gemeinden Reußenköge, Bredstedt, Breklum, Struckum und Hattstedtermarsch
16.12.2024 – 24.12.2024

Member State: France

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Département Allier (03):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-000015
BOURBON L’ARCHANBMAULT
CERILLY
COULEUVRE
FRANCHESSE
LE VILHAIN
LIMOISE
LURCY-LEVIS
POUZY MESANGY
SAINT AUBIN LE MONIAL
THENEUILLE
YGRANDE
14.12.2024

SAINT PLAISIR
6.12.2024 – 14.12.2024
Département Landes (40):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00014
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
Bélus
Biarrotte
Biaudos
Cagnotte
Cauneille
Hastingues
Heugas
Josse
Oeyregave
Orthevielle
Peyrehorade
Rivière-Saas-et-Gourby
Saint-André-de-Seignanx
Saint-Geours-de-Maremne
Saint-Laurent-de-Gosse
Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse
Saubrigues
Saubusse
Siest
Tercis-les-Bains
14.12.2024
Orist
Pey
Port-de-Lanne
Saint-Étienne-d’Orthe
Saint-Jean-de-Marsacq
Saint-Lon-les-Mines
Sainte-Marie-de-Gosse
Saint-Martin-de-Hinx
6.12.2024 – 14.12.2024
Département Morbihan (56):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00013
—
BIGNAN: Commune entière
—
BULÉON: Commune entière
—
CREDIN: Zone de la commune ainsi délimitée : sud d’un axe reliant le lieu-dit Keraudran au lieu dit l’Ecu en passant par le centre de Crédin
—
KERFOURN: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune délimitée
—
Au sud par la route de Kerlegouge puis route de Park Yen jusqu’au bourg
—
A l’Est par la rue du Hent Don et la rue de Guerdaner
—
LANTILLAC: Commune entière
—
LOCMINÉ: Commune entière
—
MOREAC: Partie Sud-Ouest de la commune qui n’est pas en ZP
—
MOUSTOIR AC: Zone nord de la commune ainsi délimitée : nord du Ponctuel
—
ÉVELLYS: Partie de la commune qui n’est pas en ZP
—
GUENIN: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée par la D768 jusqu’à Talnay puis par la route passant par Bedivy, Kervihan, Kerauffret, Saint-Eno jusqu’à la N24
Puis délimitée au sud par la D724 jusqu’à la Haie Basse et la Villeneuve
—
LA CHAPELLE-NEUVE: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la route passant par La Villeneuve jusqu’à Kerzo puis par Le Gentil Coq, Keriven puis par la D117
—
NOYAL-PONTIVY: Zone au sud du ruisseau de Mengoët
—
PLEUGRIFFET: Commune entière
—
PLUMÉLIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Nord-Est de la commune délimitée Le Blavet jusqu’à la D1 puis par la route passant par Kermaniec, Kerhaluy-Guennec jusqu’à Saint Hilaire puis par la route passant par Lann Brugo jusqu’à la D768
—
PLUMELIN: Partie Nord de la commune délimitée par la D117 puis par la Rue du Stade
—
RADENAC: Commune entière
—
RÉGUINY: Commune entière hormis la zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard
—
SAINT-ALLOUESTRE: Commune entière
—
SAINT-THURIAU: Commune entière
2.12.2024
—
MOREAC: Zone nord-est de la commune ainsi délimitée: au sud par la route passant par Le Guénevin puis à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Le Gal et au sud par la D181 jusqu’à La Madelaine puis par la route passant par Le Crézo, Le Lanninc, Le Cosquer
—
EVELLYS: Partie de la commune délimitée
—
au Nord par la D17 puis par la route passant par Cléguennec et Luzunin puis la D 17 jusqu’à Naizin, rue des Hortensias, rue Henri de Langle, rue des Lilas jusqu’à Kerdec, Les Trois Alouettes, Kergicquel, Runiat, Moric, La Lande du Crano et Keradenys,
—
à l’Ouest par la D179 puis par la ruisseau allant jusqu’à Le Scaouët
—
au Sud : D1 passant par Remungol puis la route passant par Le Breuil et Kerrogard
—
PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY: Partie Est de la commune délimitée par le ruisseau Le Kergouet, puis la route passant par Guerrobic jusqu’à la D1
—
RÉGUINY Zone au sud de la route de Kergars-Keroyard jusqu’au lieu dit Keroyard
26.11.2024- 2.12.2024
Département Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64):
FR-HPAI(P)-2024-00014
GUICHE
SAMES
8.12.2024

Member State: Italy

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Veneto region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00012
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.710524, E 12.255178
2.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.710524, E 12.255178
24.11.2024-2.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00013
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.6420409662751, E 12.134056544088
2.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.6420409662751, E 12.134056544088
24.11.2024-2.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00015
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.905288528, E 12.057325217
16.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.905288528, E 12.057325217
8.12.2024-16.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.721413, E 12.368124
18.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.721413, E 12.368124
10.12.2024-18.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00017
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.4582909563169, E 12.0665245845646
20.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.4582909563169, E 12.0665245845646
12.12.2024-20.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00019
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.46053010, E 12.05291290
23.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.46053010, E 12.05291290
15.12.2024-23.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00022
The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.7737, E 12.432319
29.12.2024
The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.7737, E 12.432319
21.12.2024-29.12.2024
Emilia-Romagna region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.841417, E 12.076442
26.11.2024
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.841417, E 12.076442
18.11.2024 – 26.11.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00008
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.752494, E 12.158957
23.11.2024
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.752494, E 12.158957
15.11.2024 – 23.11.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00010
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.747002, E 12.13436
1.12.2024
The area of the parts of Emilia Romagna Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 44.747002, E 12.13436
23.11.2024-1.12.2024
Lombardia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00014
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.187255, E 10.33539
23.12.2024
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.187255, E 10.33539
15.12.2024-23.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00018
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.17252, E 10.351436
24.12.2024
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.17252, E 10.351436
16.12.2024-24.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00021
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.380577, E 9.450603
29.12.2024
The area of the parts of Lombardia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.380577, E 9.450603
21.12.2024-29.12.2024
Friuli Venezia Giulia region:
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00011
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.831503, E 13.197163
2.12.2024
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.831503, E 13.197163
24.11.2024-2.12.2024
IT-HPAI(P)-2024-00020
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.822093, E 13.383938
24.12.2024
The area of the parts of Friuli Venezia Giulia Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N 45.822093, E 13.383938
16.12.2024-24.12.2024

Member State: Hungary

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Békés vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00015
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00017-00019
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00027
Bucsa, Füzesgyarmat, Kertészsziget, Kőrösújfalu, Szeghalom és Vésztő települések közigazgatási területének a 47.125795 és a 21.189828, a 47.151233 és a 21.174322, a 47.130782 és a 21.191448, a 47.127623 és a 21.190594, valamint a 47.023065 és a 21.288126 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
26.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00020
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00022
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00052
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00065-00066
Békésszentandrás, Csabacsűd, Gyomaendrőd, Kardos, Örménykút és Szarvas települések közigazgatási területének a 46.893317 és a 20.424107, a 46.851265 és a 20.590212, a 46.857937 és a 20.338368, a 46.859602é s a 20.635836, a 46.893870 és a 20.380987, valamint a 46.892883 és a 20.367728 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
31.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00025
Békéssámson, Kaszaper, Kardoskút, Mezőhegyes, Mezőkovácsháza, Nagybánhegyes, Orosháza, Pusztaföldvár, Tótkomlós, és Végegyháza települések közigazgatási területének a 46.423992 és a 20.763161 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
12.12.2024
Hajdú-Bihar vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00015
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00017-00019
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00027
Biharnagybajom, Csökmő, Darvas, Nagyrábé, Sárrétudvari, Szerep és Újiráz települések közigazgatási területének a 47.125795 és a 21.189828, a 47.151233 és a 21.174322, a 47.130782 és a 21.191448, a 47.127623 és a 21.190594, valamint a 47.023065 és a 21.288126 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
26.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0028
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0053
Hajdúhadház, Hajdúsámson, Nyíracsád, Nyíradony és Nyírmártonfalva települések közigazgatási területének a 47.682480 és a 21.888394, valamint a 47.684926 és a 21.866182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
30.11.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105
Álmosd, Bagamér, Hosszúpályi, Kokad, Létavértes, Monostorpályi, Pocsaj, Újléta és Vámospércs települések közigazgatási területének a 47.387114 és a 21.911849, a 47.379120 és a 21.902221, a 47.381722 és a 21.905715, valamint a 47.378793 és a 21.889210 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
7.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105
Kokad és Létavértes települések közigazgatási területének a 47.387114 és a 21.911849, a 47.379120 és a 21.902221, a 47.381722 és a 21.905715, valamint a 47.378793 és a 21.889210 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
29.11.2024 – 7.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104
Folyás, Görbeháza, Hajdúnánás, Polgár, Újtikos és Újszentmargita települések közigazgatási területének a a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
10.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104
Folyás és Polgár települések közigazgatási területének a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
2.12.2024 – 10.12.2024
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00020
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00022
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00051-00052
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00065-00066
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00086
Cibakháza, Kengyel, Martfű, Mesterszállás, Mezőhék, Mezőtúr, Öcsöd, Rákóczifalva, Rákócziújfalu, Tiszaföldvár, Tiszajenő, Tiszavárkony és Vezseny települések közigazgatási területének a 46.893317 és a 20.424107, a 46.851265 és a 20.590212, valamint a 46.857937 és a 20.338368 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
Cserkeszőlő, Csépa, Kunszentmárton, Nagyrév, Szelevény, Tiszainoka, Tiszakürt és Tiszasas települések védőkörzeten kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe.
1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00051
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00086
Martfű és Tiszaföldvár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.988248 és a 20.287832, valamint a 46.996654 és a 20.253719 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
27.11.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167
Besenyszög, Jászalsószentgyörgy, Jászboldogháza, Jászladány, Szászberek, Szolnok, Újszász és Zagyvarékas települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
17.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167
Szászberek, Szolnok, Újszász, Vezseny és Zagyvarékas települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
9.12.2024 – 17.12.2024
Csongrád-Csanád vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00016
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00020-00022
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00033-00034
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00037
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00039-00041
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00043-00049
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00052
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00056
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00058
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00061-00069
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00071
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00076
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00078-00081
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00083-00084
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00091
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00095
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00101
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00103
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00107
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00109
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00111-00112
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00114
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00122
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00126
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00128-00129
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00131-00133
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00135
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00137
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00141
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00152
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00159
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00161
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00169-00170
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00173-00176
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00181
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00183
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00185
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00190
Árpádhalom, Baks, Bordány, Csanytelek, Csongrád, Derekegyház, Dóc, Domaszék, Eperjes, Fábiánsebestyén, Felgyő, Mártély, Mindszent, Mórahalom, Nagymágocs, Nagytőke, Ópusztaszer, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Röszke, Sándorfalva, Szatymaz, Szegvár, Szentes, Székkutas, Tömörkény, Zákányszék és Zsombó védőkörzeten kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe.
1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00025
Ambrózfalva, Csanádalberti, Nagyér és Pitvaros települések közigazgatási területének a 46.423992 és a 20.763161 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
12.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00044-00046
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00048
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00056
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00061-00064
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00076
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00078
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00089
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00091
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00101
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00111
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00114
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00122
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00126
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00128-00129
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00131-00133
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00135
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00137
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00141
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00152
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00159
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00161
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00169-00170
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00173-00176
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00181
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00183
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00185
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189
Ásotthalom, Balástya, Csengele, Forráskút, Kistelek, Ópusztaszer, Öttömös, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Ruzsa és Üllés települések teljes közigazgatási területe.
20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00190
Szentes közigazgatási területének a 46.648143 és a 20.284182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
Bács-Kiskun vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00021
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00026
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00030
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00032-00050
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00064
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067-00072
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00074-00085
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00096
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00098-00103
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00149
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00151-00164
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00168-00189
Ágasegyháza, Akasztó, Apostag, Bácsbokod, Bácsborsód, Bácsszentgyörgy, Baja, Ballószög, Balotaszállás, Bátmonostor, Bátya, Borota, Császártöltés, Csátalja, Csávoly, Csengőd, Dávod, Drágszél, Dunaegyháza, Dunafalva, Dunapataj, Dunaszentbenedek, Dunatetétlen, Dunavecse, Dusnok, Érsekcsanád, Érsekhalma, Fajsz, Felsőlajos, Felsőszentiván, Foktő, Fülöpháza, Fülöpjakab, Fülöpszállás, Gara, Géderlak, Hajós, Harta, Helvécia, Hercegszántó, Homokmégy, Izsák, Kalocsa, Katymár, Kecskemét, Kéleshalom, Kerekegyháza, Kunadacs, Kunbaracs, Kunpeszér, Kunszállás, Kunszentmiklós, Ladánybene, Lajosmizse, Lakitelek, Madaras, Mátételke, Miske, Nagybaracska, Nemesnádudvar, Nyárlőrinc, Ordas, Orgovány, Öregcsertő, Páhi, Rém, Solt, Soltszentimre, Sükösd, Szabadszállás, Szakmár, Szalkszentmárton, Szentkirály, Szeremle, Tabdi, Tass, Tiszaalpár, Tiszakécske, Tiszaug, Újsolt, Újtelek, Uszód, Városföld és Vaskút települések védőkörzeten kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe.
1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00026
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00042
Fülöpszállás, Izsák és Soltszentimre települések közigazgatási területének a 46.771020 és a 19.266569 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00030
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00033-00041
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00043-00050
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00055-00064
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00067-00072
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00074-00085
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00087-00096
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00098-00103
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00106-00122
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00124-00132
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00134-00144
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00147-00154
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00156-00164
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00168-00185
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00188-00189
Bácsalmás, Bácsszőlős, Balotaszállás, Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Csikéria, Csólyospálos, Gátér, Harkakötöny, Imrehegy, Jakabszállás, Jánoshalma, Jászszentlászló, Kaskantyú, Kecel, Kelebia, Kiskőrös, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kiskunhalas, Kiskunmajsa, Kisszállás, Kömpöc, Kunbaja, Kunfehértó, Mélykút, Móricgát, Orgovány, Páhi, Pálmonostora, Petőfiszállás, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tataháza, Tázlár, Tompa és Zsana települések teljes közigazgatási területe.
Borota és Kéleshalom települések közigazgatási területének a 46.308760 és a 19.291230 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00123
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00145-00146
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00155
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00186-00187
Borota, Csávoly és Rém települések közigazgatási területének a 46.254915 és a 19.131604, a 46.257157 és a 19.128105, a 46.256205 és a 19.125921, valamint a 46.261845 és a 19.129315 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
20.12.2024 – 1.1.2025
Fejér vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00023
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00029
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00031
Alap, Alsószentiván, Baracs, Daruszentmiklós, Dunaújváros, Előszállás, Hantos, Kisapostag, Mezőfalva, Nagykarácsony, Nagyvenyim, Rácalmás és Sárbogárd települések közigazgatási területének a 46.899692 és a 18.818620, a 46.884010 és a 18.818080, valamint az 46.905820 és a 18.849790 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
1.1.2025
Tolna vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00023
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00029
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00031
Dunaföldvár település közigazgatási területének a 46.899692 és a 18.818620, a 46.884010 és a 18.818080, valamint az 46.905820 és a 18.849790 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00032
Bogyiszló, Decs és Őcsény települések közigazgatási területének a 46.278670 és a 18.980240 849790 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
1.1.2025
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150
Aparhant, Bonyhád, Bonyhádvarasd, Csibrák, Döbrököz, Györe, Izmény, Kisdorog, Kismányok, Kisvejke, Kurd, Lengyel, Mucsfa, Mucsi, Nagymányok, Nagyvejke, Tevel, Váralja és Závod települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
15.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150
Györe, Izmény, Kisvejke, Lengyel és Mucsfa települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
7.12.2024 – 15.12.2024
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0028
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-0053
Balkány Bököny, Geszteréd, Nyírgelse, Nyírlugos, Nyírmihálydi, és Szakoly települések közigazgatási területének a 47.682480 és az 21.888394, valamint a 47.684926 és a 21.866182 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
30.11.2024
Komárom-Esztergom vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165
Ács, Ászár, Bábolna, Bakonyszombathely, Bana, Bársonyos, Csép, Ete, Kerékteleki, Kisbér, Nagyigmánd, Tárkány közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
21.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165
Bábolna, Kerékteleki és Tárkány települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
13.12.2024 – 21.12.2024
Győr-Moson-Sopron vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165
Mezőörs, Rétalap, Bőny, Mezőörs, Nyalka, Pázmándfalu, Pér, Rétalap, Táp, Tápszentmiklós közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
21.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00165
Bana és Rétalap települések közigazgatási területének a 47.590030 és a 17.937804 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
13.12.2024 – 21.12.2024
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00104
Hejőkürt, Oszlár, Tiszakeszi, Tiszapalkonya, Tiszatarján és Tiszaújváros települések közigazgatási területének a a 47.823523 és a 21.124078 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
9.12.2024
Baranya vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150
Alsómocsolád, Bikal, Egyházaskozár, Hegyhátmaróc, Kárász, Köblény, Mágocs, Máza, Mekényes, Nagyhajmás, Szalatnak, Szászvár, Tófű és Vékény települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
15.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00150
Egyházaskozár, Mekényes és Szárász települések közigazgatási területének a 46.350438 és 18.371764 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
7.12.2024 – 15.12.2024
Somogy vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00166
Bárdudvarnok, Beleg, Csököly, Gige, Görgeteg, Hedrehely, Hencse, Homokszentgyörgy, Jákó, Kadarkút, Kisbajom, Kőkút, Kutas, Lábod, Mike, Nagykorpád, Rinyabesenyő, Rinyakovácsi, Szabás és Visnye települések közigazgatási területének a 46.238856 és a 17.538140 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
17.12.2024
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00166
Kadarkút, Lábod, Mike és Nagykorpád települések közigazgatási területének a 46.238856 és a 17.538140GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
9.12.2024 – 17.12.2024
Pest vármegye
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00167
Abony, Tápiógyörgye és Újszilvás települések közigazgatási területének a 47.251081 és a 20.109558 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.
17.12.2024

Member State: the Netherlands

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Provinces Gelderland, Utrecht and Flevoland
NL-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
Those parts of the the provinces of Gelderland, Utrecht en Flevoland extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long / 5.54 lat 52.27
20.12.2024
Those parts of the provinces of Gelderland and Flevoland contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long / 5.54 lat 52.27
12.12.2024 – 20.12.2024
DE-HPAI(P)-2024-00019
Those parts of the province Gelderland contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.21 lat 51.82
21.12.2024

Member State: Austria

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
Niederösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00002
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00004
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Amstetten, Allhartsberg, Ardagger, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Ertl, Haag, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St. Peter in der Au, Strengberg, Wallsee-Sindelburg, Weistrach, Winklarn, Wolfsbach, Ybbsitz, Zeillern innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 12,76 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 12,76 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Scheibbs, Teile der Gemeinde Randegg innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 12,76 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
10.12.2024
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, St. Peter in der Au, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 5,78 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
2.12.2024 – 10.12.2024
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00006
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Ardagger, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Ertl, Euratsfeld, Haag, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St. Peter an der Au, Strengberg, Wallsee-Sindelburg, Weistrach, Winklarn, Wolfsbach, Ybbsitz, Zeillern innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Scheibbs, Teile der Gemeinde Randegg innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs (Stadt), Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Perg, Teile der Gemeinde Mitterkirchen im Machland innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Steyr-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Gaflenz, Maria Neustift innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 13,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
15.12.2024
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Allhartsberg, Amstetten, Aschbach-Markt, Biberbach, Kematen an der Ybbs, Neuhofen an der Ybbs, Oed-Oehling, Seitenstetten, Sonntagberg, St.Peter an der Au, Wolfsbach innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
Bezirk Waidhofen an der Ybbs (Stadt), Teile der Gemeinde Waidhofen an der Ybbs innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 6,8 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,73 sind.
7.12.2024 – 15.12.2024
Niederösterreich und Oberösterreich
AT-HPAI(P)-2024-00005
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Behamberg, Ennsdorf, Ernsthofen, Haag, Haidershofen, St. Pantaleon-Erla, Strengberg, St. Valentin, Weistrach, innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
Bezirk Linz-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Asten, Enns, Hargelsberg, Hofkirchen im Traunkreis, Kronstorf, Niederneukirchen, St. Florian innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,05, Länge 14,49 sind.
Bezirk Steyr-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Dietach, Wolfern innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
Bezirk Stadt Steyr, Teile der Gemeinde Steyr innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 10 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
13.12.2024
Bezirk Amstetten, Teile der Gemeinden Ernsthofen, St. Valentin innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
Bezirk Linz-Land, Teile der Gemeinde Hargelsberg, Kronstorf innerhalb eines Kreises mit einem Radius von 3 km, dessen Mittelpunkt die WGS84-Koordinaten Breite 48,14, Länge 14,49 sind.
5.12.2024 – 13.12.2024

Member State: Poland

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00030
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00033
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00034
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00035
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00036
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00038
W województwie wielkopolskim: 1)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Ulejno, Dębiczek, Janowo, Mączniki, Kijewo, Chwałkowo, Czartki, Nadziejewo, Strzeszki, Pętkowo, Słupia Wielka, Annopole, Lorenka, Brzeziny, Koszuty, Koszuty-Huby, Żabikowo, Trzebisławki, Staniszewo, Pławce, Zdziechowice; 2)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Mieczysławowo, Bukowy Las, Zberki, Rusibórz, Rusiborek, Kopaszyce, Orzeszkowo, Dominowo, Szrapki, Marianowo, Gablin, Bagrowo, Michałowo, Wysławice, Karolewo, Andrzejpole, Borzejewo, Chłapowo, Nowojewo, Biskupice, Giecz, Poświątno, Janowo; 3)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości: Murzynowo Leśne, Murzynowiec Leśny, Garby, Baba, Kaźmierki, Sulęcinek, Borowo, Sulęcin, Bogusławki, Bronisław, Witowo, Krzykosy, Przymiarki, Solec, Małoszki, Lubrze, Pięczkowo, Młodzikówko, Młodzikowo, Młodzikowice; 4)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, miejscowości: Komorze, Komorze Nowe, Nowe Miasto nad Wartą, Hermanów, Wolica Kozia, Dębno, Lutynia, Franciszków; 5)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Zaniemyśl, miejscowość: Pigłowice, Śnieciska, Polwica-Huby, Polwica, Dobroczyn Pierwszy, Płaczki, Brzostek, Luboniec, Wyszakowskie Huby, Wyszakowo, Czarnotki, Jaszkowo, Bożydar, Winna, Mądre; 6)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Orzechowo, Szczodrzejewo, Książno, Chlebowo, Nowa Wieś Podgórna; 7)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Bardo, Chwalibogowo, Obłaczkowo, Chocicza Mała, Osowo, Nowa Wieś Królewska, Grzymysławice, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo; 8)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Mystki, Targowa Górka, Racławki, Mała Górka; 9)
w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Lgów, Gęczew, Gąsiorów, Śmiełów, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Paruchów, Komorze Przybysławskie;
10)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Krzywa Góra, Grabowo Królewskie, Kołaczkowo, Łagiewki, Wszembórz, Cieśle Wielkie, Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec, Gorazdowo;
11)
w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowość: Prusinowo, Biernatki, Dębiec, Kórnik, Dziećmierowo, Szczodrzykowo, Celestynowo, Pierzchno, Runowo, Kromolice;
12)
w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo, miejscowości: Śródka, Krzyżowniki, Zimin, Krerowo, Bugaj, Lipowiec, Kleszczewo, Bylin, Nagradowice, Poklatki, Markowice;
13)
w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowość: Czerlejno, Mikuszyn, Węgierskie, Ługowiny, Klony, Drzązgowo, Sokolniki Drzązgowskie, Gułtowy;
14)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowości: Tarnowa, Pyzdry, Dłusk.
19.12.2024
W województwie wielkopolskim: 1)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Środa Wlkp., miejscowości: Brzezie, Czarne Piątkowo, Grójec, Nietrzanowo, Starkówiec Piątkowski, Szlachcin, Szlachcin-Huby, Winna Góra, Pierzchno, Pierzchnica, Marianowo Brodowskie, Brodowo, Włostowo, Olszewo, Chudzice, Henrykowo, Ruszkowo, Tadeuszewo, Rumiejki, Środa Wlkp., Zielniki, Zielniczki, Urniszewo, Zmysłowo, Bieganowo, Turek, Januszewo, Jarosławiec, Topola, Janowo, Dębicz, Babin, Podgaj, Romanowo; 2)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Krzykosy, miejscowości Miąskowo, Murzynówko, Wiosna, Wygranka; 3)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Miłosław, miejscowości: Białe Piątkowo, Bugaj, Franulka, Kozubiec, Lipie, Kębłowo, Pałczyn, Miłosław, Rudki, Biechówko, Biechowo, Gorzyce, Skotniki, Mikuszewo, Chrustowo, Sarnice, Czeszewo; 4)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowości: Murzynowo Kościelne, Sabaszczewo; 5)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowość: Budziłowo
11.12.2024-19.12.2024
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-2024-00033
W województwie wielkopolskim: 1)
Część gmin: Szamotuły, Ostroróg, Pniewy, Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim. 2)
Część gmin: Tarnowo Podgórne, Rokietnica w powiecie poznańskim.
Zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636
4.12.2024
W województwie wielkopolskim: 1)
Część gmin: Kaźmierz i Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim.
Zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.5370561/16.519636
26.11.2024 -4.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00037
W województwie dolnośląskim: 1)
w powiecie wołowskim: a)
w gminie Wińsko, miejscowości: Staszowice, Smogorzów Wielki, Smogorzówek, Rudawa, Domanice, Baszyn, Zygląg, Chwałkowice, Wińsko, Rogówek, Kleszczowice, Białków, Stryjno, Węglewo, Morzyna, Grzeszyn, Piskorzyna, Naroków, Jakubikowice, b) w gminie Wołów, miejscowości: Nieszkowice, Trzy Domy, Pierusza, Pawłoszewo, Łazarzowice, Smarków, Straża, Gródek, Proszkowa, Siodłkowice, Stęszów, Pełczyn, Straszowice, Żychlin, Wróblewo, Warzęgowo; 2)
w powiecie górowskim: a)
w gminie Wąsosz, miejscowości: Wrząca Śląska, Drozdowice Małe, Drozdowice Wielkie, Marysin, Jawor, Kamień Górowski, Chocieborowice, Kowalowo, Płoski, Kobylniki, Ostrawa, Pobiel, Młynary, Zubrza, Ługi, Unisławice, Bartków, b)
w gminie Jemielno, miejscowości: Piotrowice Małe, c)
w mieście Wąsosz: obszar położony na południowy zachód od rzeki Barczy; 3)
w powiecie trzebnickim: a)
w gminie Żmigród, miejscowości: Laskowa, Korzeńsko, Chodlewo, Garbce, Żmigród, Żmigródek, Kędzie, Borek, Karnice, Bychowo, Węglewo, Łapczyce, Kliszkowice Małe, Kliszkowice, Borzęcin, Morzęcino, b)
w gminie Prusice, miejscowości: Raszowice, Zakrzewo, Ligota Strupińska, Strupina, Górka, Piotrkowice, Raki, Sucha, część obrębu geodezyjnego miejscowości Pększyn położona na północny zachód i północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Skokowa i Krościna Wielka.
11.12.2024
W województwie dolnośląskim: 1)
w powiecie wołowskim, w gminie Wińsko miejscowości: Białawy Małe, Białawy, Białawy Wielkie, Czaplice, Brzózka, Mysłoszów, Głębowice, Trzcinica Wołowska, Turzany, Aleksandrowice; 2)
w powiecie górowskim, w gminie Wąsosz miejscowości: Lubiel, Czaple, Wrząca Wielka; 3)
w powiecie trzebnickim, w gminie Żmigród miejscowość: Barkowo, Rogożowa, Barkówko, Wierzbina, Góreczki.
3.12.2024 – 11.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00038
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00041
W województwie lubelskim:
W powiecie lubartowskim: 1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Krasne, Ochoża, Orzechów Kolonia, Rudka Starościańska; 2. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości Bójki, Jamy, Kaznów, Kaznów Kolonia, Kolechowice Folwark, Kolechowice Kolonia, Rozkopaczew, Rudka Kijańska, Wólka Stara Kijańska; 3. w gminie Serniki miejscowości: Brzostówka, Wólka Zawieprzycka 4. w gminie Niedźwiada miejscowości: Brzeźnica Bychawska, Zabiele
W powiecie łęczyńskim: 1. w gminie Ludwin miejscowości Krzczeń, Rogóźno, Zezulin Drugi;
W powiecie parczewskim: 1. w gminie Sosnowica miejscowości: Stary Orzechowów, Nowy Orzechów, Walerianów; 2. w gminie Dębowa Kłoda miejscowości: Białka, Makoszka; 3. w gminie Parczew: Babianka, Tyśmienica, Buradów
21.12.2024
W województwie lubelskim:
W powiecie lubartowskim: 1. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Drozdówka, Uścimów Stary; 2. w gminie Uścimów miejscowości: Głębokie, Jedlanka Nowa, Jedlanka Stara, Maśluchy, Uścimów Nowy; 3. w gminie Ostrów Lubelski miejscowości: Ostrów Lubelski, Kolechowice.
13.12.2024-21.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00040
W województwie dolnośląskim: 1)
w powiecie górowskim: a)
w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Siciny, Łękanów, Naratów, Niechlów, Wroniec, Żuchlów, Miechów, Wągroda, Żabin, Szaszorowice, Lipowiec, Głobice, Bełcz Wielki, Masełkowice, b)
w gminie Góra część miejscowości Osetno Małe położonej na północny zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 323 z przysiółkiem Kietlów, 2)
w powiecie lubińskim: a)
w gminie Rudna miejscowość Orsk 3)
w powiecie polkowickim: a)
w gminie Grębocice, miejscowości: Trzęsów, Rzeczyca, Żabice, Szymocin, Bucze, Czerńczyce, 4)
w powiecie głogowskim: a)
w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Kotowice, Leszkowice, Kaczyce, Piersna, Igłowice, Wierzchownia, Turów, Pęcław, Białołęka, Wojszyn, Borków b)
w gminie Głogów, miejscowości: Przedmoście, Bytnik, Borek, Zabornia, Serby, Stare Serby, Klucze, Wilków, Krzekotów, c)
w gminie Kotla, miejscowości: Głogówko, Leśna Dolina.
W powiecie lubuskim, w powiecie wschowskim: 1)
w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowości: Gola, Górczyna, Jędrzychowice, Kowalewo, Stare Drzewce, Szlichtyngowa, Zamysłów, 2)
w gminie Wschowa, miejscowości: Kandlewo, Konradowo, Siedlnica, przysiółek Czerlejewo.
22.12.2024
W województwie dolnośląskim: 1)
w powiecie górowskim: a)
w gminie Niechlów, miejscowości: Świerczów, Klimontów, Bartodzieje, Karów, 2)
w powiecie głogowskim, w gminie Pęcław, miejscowości: Droglowice, Mieleszyn, Golkowice, Wietszyce.
W województwie lubuskim: 1)
w powiecie wschowskim, w gminie Szlichtyngowa, miejscowość Dryżyna i Wyszanów.
14.12.2024-22.12.2024
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00043
PL-HPAI(NON-P)-00045
W województwie opolskim, w powiecie namysłowskim: 1)
w gminie Namysłów, miejscowości: Ligotka, Krasowice, Nowe Smarchowice, Smarchowice Śląskie, Smarchowice Wielkie, Łączany, Ziemiełowice, Jastrzębie, Woskowice Małe, Igłowice, Baldwinowice, Głuszyna, Smogorzów, Brzezinka, Pawłowice Namysłowskie; 2)
w gminie Wilków, miejscowości: Wilków, Lubska, Dębnik, Wojciechów, Pągów, Idzikowice, Jakubowice; 3)
w gminie Domaszowice, miejscowości: Gręboszów, Strzelce, Siemysłów, Woskowice Górne, Domaszowice.
W województwie wielkopolskim:, w powiecie kępińskim: 1)
w powiecie kępińskim, w gminie Rychtal, miejscowości: Dalanów, Darnowiec, Dworzyszcze, Krzyżowniki, Proszów, Rychtal, Sadogóra, Skoroszów, Zgorzelec; 2)
w gminie Perzów, miejscowości: Zbyczyna, Ligota, Trębaczów, Posmyk.
W województwie dolnośląskim:
w powiecie oleśnickim, w gminie Dziadowa Kłoda, miejscowości: Gronowice, Dalborowice, Gołębice, Miłowice.
22.12.2024
W województwie opolskim: 1)
w powiecie namysłowskim, w gminie Namysłów miejscowości: Miasto Namysłów, Michalice, Kowalowice, Smarchowice Małe, Objazda, Józefków, Rychnów, Bukowa Śląska, Kamienna, Krzyków.
12.12.2024-20.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00042
W województwie śląskim, w powiecie gliwickim: 1)
w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ciochowice, Pisarzowice, Toszek, Kotliszowice, Sarnów, Płużniczka, Wilkowiczki, Paczyna. Częściowo miejscowości: Paczynka, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulicy Pniowskiej, Boguszyce z wyłączeniem kolonii Zalesie oraz Pniów, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego przebiega wzdłuż ulic Górnej i Pniowskiej; 2)
w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowości: Poniszowice, Słupsko, Chechło, Widów, Łany, Pławniowice, Bycina, Niewiesze. Częściowo miejscowości: Rudno i Rudziniec, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż linii kolejowej; 3)
w gminie Wielowieś, miejscowości: Gajowice, Dąbrówka, Wiśnicze. Częściowo miejscowości: Zacharzowice, gdzie granica obszaru zagrożonego biegnie wzdłuż cieku wodnego „Pniówka”, Świbie w wyłączeniem części wsi o nazwie Napłatki.
W województwie opolskim, w powiecie strzeleckim: 1)
w gminie Jemielnica, miejscowości: Barut – na południe od ul. Polnej i Marka Prawego, Centawa, Jemielnica-na południowy wschód od DW426; 2)
w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Brzezina, Dziewkowice, Warmątowice, Strzelce Opolskie- dzielnica Mokre Łany; 3)
w gminie Ujazd, miejscowości: Balcarzowice, Jaryszów, Niezdrowice – Wydzierów (ul. Wiejska 1-7), Nogowczyce, Olszowa – osada Komorniki, Sieroniowice, Stary Ujazd, Ujazd, Zimna Wódka
25.12.2024
W województwie śląskim, w powiecie gliwickim: 1)
w gminie Toszek, miejscowości: Ligota Toszecka, Kotulin wraz z przynależącą do niego Szklarnią, Pawłowice, Proboszczowice oraz częściowo miejscowość Boguszyce obejmując tylko kolonię Zalesie; 2)
w gminie Rudziniec, miejscowość: Niekarmia.
W województwie opolskim: 1)
w powiecie strzeleckim, w gminie Strzelce Opolskie, miejscowości: Błotnica Strzelecka, Płużnica Wielka.
17.12.2024-25.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00043
W województwie mazowieckim, w powiecie siedleckim: 1)
w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Borki-Kosiorki, Borki-Paduchy, Borki-Sołdy, Ciosny Daćbogi, Gostchorz, Kaczory, Nowe Okniny, Okniny-Podzdrój, Pluty, Stare Okniny, Śmiary, Tworki, Wiśniew, Wiśniew-Kolonia wyłącznie część miejscowości sięgającej do drogi krajowej nr 63; 2)
w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Borki-Kosy, Borki-Wyrki, Bzów, Chromna, Grodzisk, Jasionka, Karcze, Ługi Wielkie, Pogonów, Rówce, Tchórzew, Tchórzew-Plewki, Wólka Kamienna, Zbuczyn, Zdany.
W województwie lubelskim, w powiecie łukowskim: 1)
w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Biardy, Gołaszyn, Gręzówka, Gręzówka Kolonia, Klimki, Ławki, Łuków, Role, Suleje, Turze Rogi, Wólka Świątkowa, Zalesie; 2)
w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Dębowica, Karwów, Mikłusy, Nurzyna, Płudy, Popławy Rogale, Szaniawy-Matysy, Szaniawy-Poniaty, Świercze, Trzebieszów Drugi, Trzebieszów Kolonia, Trzebieszów Pierwszy, Wierzejki, Wylany, Zaolszynie, Zembry.
29.12.2024
W województwie mazowieckim, w powiecie siedleckim: 1)
w gminie Wiśniew, miejscowości: Radomyśl, Zabłocie; 2)
w gminie Zbuczyn, miejscowości: Dziewule, Januszówka, Łęcznowola, Smolanka.
W województwie lubelskim, w powiecie łukowskim: 1)
w gminie Trzebieszów, miejscowości: Celiny, Gołowierzchy, Wólka Konopna; 2)
w gminie Łuków, miejscowości: Krynka.
21.12.2024-29.12.2024
PL-HPAI(P)-2024-00044
W województwie warmińsko-mazurskim: 1)
w powiecie iławskim: a)
w gminie Iława: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Dziarnówko na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Smolniki na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Bagno i Tchórzanka, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tchórzanka na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dziarnówko i Pomierki; b)
w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Biała Góra, Byszwałd, Fijewo, Kazanice, Losy, Łążek, Łążyn, Napromek, Omule, Prątnica, Rodzone, Złotowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Czerlin na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Lubstyn i Gutowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Grabowo na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lubstyn na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rożental na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Wałdyki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Szczepankowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Truszczyny, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na północ od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na wschód od drogi nr 541, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Wałdyki na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Czerlin i Grabowo; c)
w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone. 2)
w powiecie nowomiejskim: a)
w gminie Grodziczno, miejscowości: Grodziczno, Kuligi, Linowiec, Montowo, Świniarc, Zwiniarz, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Lorki na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Mroczenko na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Ostaszewo i Kąciki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowe Grodziczno na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Hartowiec i Sugajenko, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na zachód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi; b)
w gminie Nowe Miasto Lubawskie, miejscowości: Bratian, Pacółtowo, Tylice, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Chrośle na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Smolniki i Mikołajki, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Gwiździny na północ od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Kurzętnik i Grądy, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nawra na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Gryźliny i Krzemieniewo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Nowy Dwór Bratiański na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Katarzynki i Nawra, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Radomno na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Dół i Nowy Dwór Bratiański; c)
w granicach administracyjnych miasta Nowe Miasto Lubawskie na wschód od ulicy Jagiellońskiej, dalej ulicą Mickiewicza do Ronda Niepodległości, następnie na wschód od linii łączącej Rondo Niepodległości i miejscowość Nawra.
28.12.2024
W województwie warmińsko-mazurskim: 1)
w powiecie iławskim: a)
w gminie Lubawa, miejscowości: Mortęgi, Targowisko Górne, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Ludwichowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Sampława i Pacółtowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Rakowice na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Biała Góra i Jakubkowo, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Sampława na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Targowisko Dolne na południe od drogi krajowej nr 15, w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Tuszewo na zachód od drogi nr 541; b)
w granicach administracyjnych miasta Lubawa na południe od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Fijewo i Rodzone; 2)
w powiecie nowomiejskim, w gminie Grodziczno: w granicach administracyjnych miejscowości Zajączkowo na wschód od linii poprowadzonej przez miejscowości Łążek i Kuligi.
20.12.2024-28.12.2024

Member State: Romania

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
County: Bihor
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00054
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00073
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00097
HU-HPAI(P)-2024-00105
DIOSIG – Com. DIOSIG
6.12.2024
County: Timiș
RO-HPAI(P)-2024-00003
SECAȘ – Com. SECAȘ
BARA – Com. BARA
DOBREȘTI – Com. BARA
LĂPUȘNIC – Com. BARA
OHABA LUNGĂ – Com. OHABA LUNGĂ
IERȘNIC – Com. OHABA LUNGĂ
CLADOVA – Com. BETHAUSEN
REMETEA-LUNCĂ – Com. MĂNĂȘTIUR
LEUCUȘEȘTI – Com. BETHAUSEN
JUPANI – Com. TRAIAN VUIA
SUSANI – Com. TRAIAN VUIA
SUDRIAȘ – Com. TRAIAN VUIA
CLICIOVA – Com. BETHAUSEN
NEVRINCEA – Com. BETHAUSEN
VALEA LUNGĂ ROMÂNĂ – Com. COȘTEIU
ȚIPARI – Com. COȘTEIU
PĂRU – Com. COȘTEIU
BALINȚ – Com. BALINȚ
TÂRGOVIȘTE – Com. BALINȚ
PANIOVA – Com. GHIZELA
FĂDIMAC – Com. BALINȚ
26.12.2024
CUTINA – Com. BETHAUSEN
BETHAUSEN – Com. BETHAUSEN
BODO – Com BALINȚ
18.12.2024 -26.12.2024

Member State: Slovakia

ADIS reference number of the outbreak
Area comprising:
Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687
SK-HPAI(P)-2024-00007
municipalities of Nové Zámky, Bánov, Bešeňov, Branovo, Semerovo, Dubník ( the parts Dvor Mikuláš and Dvor Dubník), Pribeta, Bajč, Hurbanovo (the parts Nová Trstená, Pavlov Dvor), Nesvady (the part Aňala)
7.12.2024
municipality of Dvory nad Žitavou
29.11.2024 – 7.12.2024

Part C

Further restricted zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Article 1, point (b), and Article 4:

Member State: Italy

Area comprising:
Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a
Emilia-Romagna region:
—
Municipality of Argenta (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Codigoro (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Comacchio (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Copparo (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Ferrara (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Fiscaglia (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Goro (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Jolanda di Savoia (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Lagosanto (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Masi Torello (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Mesola (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Ostellato (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Portomaggiore (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Riva del Po (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Tresignana (Ferrara)
—
Municipality of Voghiera (Ferrara)
31.1.2025
Lombardia region:
—
Municipality of Antegnate (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Bagnatica (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Barbata (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Bariano (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Bolgare (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Calcinate (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Calcio (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Castelli Calepio (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Cavernago (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Cividate al Piano (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Cologno al Serio (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Cortenuova (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Costa di Mezzate (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Covo (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Fara Olivana con Sola (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Fontanella (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Ghisalba (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Grumello del Monte (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Isso (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Martinengo (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Morengo (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Mornico al Serio (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Pagazzano (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Palosco (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Pumenengo (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Romano di Lombardia (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Seriate (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Telgate (Bergamo) South of A4
—
Municipality of Torre Pallavicina (Bergamo)
—
Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Azzano Mella (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Barbariga (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Berlingo (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Borgosatollo (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Brandico (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Brescia (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Calcinato (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Capriano del Colle (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Castegnato (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Castel Mella (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Castelcovati (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Castenedolo (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Castrezzato (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Chiari (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Cigole (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Coccaglio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Cologne (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Comezzano-Cizzago (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Corzano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Dello (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Erbusco (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Flero (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Gambara (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Isorella (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Leno (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Lograto (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Longhena (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Maclodio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Mairano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Milzano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Montirone (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Orzivecchi (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Ospitaletto (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Palazzolo sull’Oglio (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Pompiano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Poncarale (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Pontoglio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Quinzano d’Oglio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Remedello (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Rezzato (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Roccafranca (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Roncadelle (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Rovato (Brescia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Rudiano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia)
—
Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Seniga (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Travagliato (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Trenzano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Urago d’Oglio (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Visano (Brescia)
—
Municipality of Camisano (Cremona)
—
Municipality of Casale Cremasco-Vidolasco (Cremona)
—
Municipality of Casaletto di Sopra (Cremona)
—
Municipality of Castel Gabbiano (Cremona)
—
Municipality of Soncino (Cremona)
31.1.2025
Veneto region:
—
Municipality of Arzergrande (Padova)
—
Municipality of Bovolenta (Padova)
—
Municipality of Brugine (Padova)
—
Municipality of Candiana (Padova)
—
Municipality of Codevigo (Padova)
—
Municipality of Correzzola (Padova)
—
Municipality of Piove di Sacco (Padova)
—
Municipality of Pontelongo (Padova)
—
Municipality of Sant’Angelo di Piove di Sacco (Padova)
—
Municipality of Adria (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Ariano nel Polesine (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Corbola (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Loreo (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Papozze (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Pettorazza Grimani (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Porto Tolle (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Porto Viro (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Rosolina (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Taglio di Po (Rovigo)
—
Municipality of Campagna Lupia (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Campolongo Maggiore (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Camponogara (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Cavarzere (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Chioggia (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Cona (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Dolo (Venezia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Fiesso d’Artico (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Fossò (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Mira (Venezia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Mirano (Venezia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Pianiga (Venezia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Stra (Venezia)
—
Municipality of Venezia (Venezia) South of A4
—
Municipality of Vigonovo (Venezia)
31.1.2025

Member State: Poland

Area comprising:
Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a
W województwie wielkopolskim: 1)
w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kostrzyn, miejscowości: Czerlejnko, Trzek, Strumiany, Sokolniki Klonowskie, Libartowo, Siedlec, Brzeźno, Antonin; 2)
w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kleszczewo: miejscowości: Tulce, Komorniki; 3)
w powiecie poznańskim, w gminie Kórnik, miejscowości: Dachowa, Robakowo, Borówiec, Skrzynki, Mościenica, Bnin, Czołowo, Błażejewo; 4)
w powiecie średzkim, w gminie Dominowo, miejscowość: Dzierżnica; 5)
w powiecie średzkim, gmina Nowe Miasto nad Wartą na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym; 6)
w powiecie średzkim, część gminy Zaniemyśl na terenie nie objętym obszarami zagrożonym i zapowietrzonym; 7)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Nekla, miejscowości: Starczanowo, Stroszki, Podstolice, Chwałszyce, Stępocin, Opatówko; 8)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Września, miejscowości: Września, Żerniki, Neryngowo, Kaczanowo, Bierzglinek, Białężyce, Chocicza Wielka; 9)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Kołaczkowo, miejscowości: Spławie, Cieśle Małe, Borzykowo, Żydowo, Zieliniec;
10)
w powiecie wrzesińskim, w gminie Pyzdry, miejscowość: Pyzdry;
11)
w powiecie jarocińskim, w gminie Żerków, miejscowości: Chrzan, Laski, Bieździadów, Rozmarynów, Brzostków, Szczonów, Pogorzelica, Komorze Przybysławskie, Paruchów, Antonin, Przybysław;
12)
w powiecie śremskim, w gminie Książ Wlkp., miejscowości: Gogolewo, Gogolewko, Świączyń.
8.12.2024

*
In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Windsor Framework (see Joint Declaration No 1/2023 of the Union and the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of 24 March 2023, OJ L 102, 17.4.2023, p. 87) in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Framework, for the purposes of this Annex, references to Member State include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3031 of 11 June 2024 on the regional State aid SA.63470 (2022/C) (ex 2021/N) which Hungary is planning to implement for GKN Automotive Hungary Kft. (previously Rubin NewCo 2021 Kft.) (notified under document C(2024) 3925)

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3031 11.12.2024
(1) On 11 June 2021, Hungary pre-notified to the Commission its intention to grant regional investment aid (the ‘measure’) in favour of Rubin NewCo 2021 Kft. (‘Rubin’)(2)for the setting-up of a new establishment for production of automotive components in Miskolc, Hungary (the ‘Investment Project’).
(2) On 30 June 2021, a virtual meeting took place between the Commission services, the Hungarian authorities and representatives of GKN Automotive Limited (‘GKN Automotive’, recital (15)).
(3) On 23 July 2021, the Commission requested supplementary information, which Hungary submitted on 27 August 2021.
(4) On 21 September 2021, a second virtual meeting took place between the Commission services, the Hungarian authorities and representatives of GKN Automotive.
(5) On 30 September 2021, the Commission requested supplementary information, which Hungary submitted on 2 December 2021, together with its formal notification of the measure.
(6) On 1 February 2022, the Commission requested further information, which Hungary provided on 29 March, 11 April and 4 May 2022. The Commission requested additional information on 13 May and 15 July 2022 and Hungary replied, respectively, on 17 May and 23 August 2022.
(7) By letter of 23 August 2022, Hungary exceptionally agreed to waive its right deriving from Article 342 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation No 1/1958(3), and agreed to have this decision adopted and notified in the English language.
(8) By letter dated 27 October 2022, the Commission informed Hungary that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (the ‘Opening Decision’). On 14 February 2023, Hungary sent its comments on the Opening Decision to the Commission.
(9) The Opening Decision was published in theOfficial Journal of the European Unionon 22 September 2023(4). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments within one month.
(10) On 3 and 16 October 2023, the Commission received comments from, respectively, Melrose Industries PLC (‘Melrose’) and GKN Automotive. On 24 November 2023, the Commission submitted those comments to Hungary, which replied by letter dated 21 December 2023.
(11) On 8 March 2024, Hungary submitted an overview table listing the doubts that had been raised in the Opening Decision and the corresponding evidence that Hungary considered it had provided to dispel such doubts.
(12) On 16 April 2024, a meeting took place between the Commission services, Hungary and GKN Automotive. On the same day and in view of the meeting with the Commission services, Hungary supplemented its comments of 14 February 2023 with new documents. On 17 April 2024, Hungary re-submitted those documents together with some additional documents and a memorandum summarising the discussion with the Commission services of 16 April 2024 and providing further comments on the issues discussed and on the new evidence submitted.
(13) On 25 April 2024, as a further follow-up to the meeting of 16 April 2024, Hungary submitted another memorandum further commenting on some of the Commission’s doubts.
(14) Through the measure, the Hungarian authorities intend to promote regional development by providing regional investment aid for the setting-up of a new establishment for the production of automotive components (sideshafts, propshafts and sub-components such as joints). The Investment Project is located in the Felsőzsolca industrial zone in Miskolc, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (NUTS 3 code HU311), in the region of Northern Hungary (NUTS 2 code HU31), an area eligible for regional aid under Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU based on the Hungarian regional aid maps for both the period from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2021 (‘regional aid map 2014’)(5)and the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2027 (‘regional aid map 2022’)(6).
(15) The recipient of the aid is Rubin, a legal entity that at the time of its establishment (January 2021), was fully owned by Eachairn Aerospace Holdings Limited, a member of UK-based Melrose group(7). On 31 August 2022, 100 % of the ownership of Rubin was transferred, within the Melrose group, to GKN Industries Limited(8). GKN Industries Limited controls GKN Automotive, the entity which holds investments in GKN Automotive entities, performs some head office functions and employs part of GKN Automotive’s senior management and functional leadership team(9). On 20 April 2023, Melrose demerged its GKN Automotive business(10), including GKN Industries Limited, GKN Automotive and Rubin, to form part of a new independent group of companies, the ultimate parent company of which is the UK-based Dowlais Group plc. The beneficiary of the aid does not meet the criteria to qualify as a small or a medium-sized enterprise(11)and should thus be considered as a large enterprise.
(16) The Hungarian authorities confirmed that neither Rubin nor the Melrose Group is an undertaking in difficulty as defined in the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty(12). The Hungarian authorities have not informed the Commission of any changes in this respect that would have been caused by the change in ownership of Rubin.
(17) According to the Hungarian authorities, the Investment Project is part of GKN Automotive’s long-term restructuring plan defined in 2019 (the ‘Strategy’). The Strategy aims at safeguarding GKN Automotive’s competitiveness in an increasingly competitive market environment by consolidating its inefficient and scattered European production footprint and shifting its production capacity towards more cost-effective locations. GKN Automotive’s manufacturing operations in Europe are spread across more than ten sites, the majority of which are in Western Europe, in locations with high production costs. Furthermore, those sites are largely fragmented and supply each other with intermediate products thereby resulting in inefficiencies through increased transport and stock holding costs.
(18) The Strategy is structured into multiple phases (‘Waves one to six’). The first and the third waves– which involve the [transfer of business](*1)of certain sites – are the only waves in the process of being implemented. As explained at recitals 40 to 42 of the Opening Decision, Wave two concerned the setting-up of a new production facility for products different to those under the Investment Project and its implementation has been suspended, and Waves four, five and six did not advance further than the conceptual stage of the Strategy with no further steps towards implementation taken.
(19) Wave one, which sought to balance GKN Automotive’s capacity with expected demand, consisted in closing certain sites and transferring their manufacturing operations to existing European sites with spare capacity.
(20) Wave three, as initially planned in the Strategy (November 2019) provided for the [transfer of business] of two European sites and the transfer of their capacity to two integrated sites to be established in two countries that were more cost-effective. Those new production sites would also cover production capacity from other existing production sites to be [transferred] under the following waves. This wave was amended in July 2020 (‘New wave three’). Under New wave three, the relevant production would be integrated into only one integrated site.
(21) The Hungarian authorities explained that the decision to pursue a certain wave within the Strategy (for example, a decision on the [transfer] and/or transfers of production capacity and on the setting-up of new sites, where needed) should be considered as having been taken only once a project is subject to a more detailed feasibility analysis (bottom-up) and a business case is prepared for approval of the relevant funding release.
(22) The Investment Project, which implements New wave three, concerns the setting-up of a production facility for automotive components that will integrate the capacity, without increasing it, of two existing GKN Automotive production facilities in Europe into a new integrated plant in Hungary. Hungary explained that the Investment Project is not planned to accommodate further transfers under the scope of waves two and four to six of the Strategy (recitals 41 and 42 of the Opening Decision).
(23) The Investment Project will have a production capacity of around [5.5 – 7.5] million units of sideshafts and [0.5 – 2.5] million units of propshafts. In addition, it will produce joints and other components (capacity of [17.5 – 21] million units) to be assembled on site into sideshafts and propshafts, and also supply other GKN Automotive assembly sites.
(24) The Investment Project is expected to create approximately 1 500 new direct jobs in Hungary.
(25) According to the Hungarian authorities, the beneficiary submitted its aid applications on 8 April 2021 (for the cash grant) and on 31 March 2021 (for the tax benefit). Those applications were (conditionally) approved on, respectively, 22 December 2021 for the cash grant (recital (29)), and on 12 December 2021 for the tax benefit (recital (31)). The works on the Investment Project then started, within the meaning of paragraph (20)(v) of the Regional Aid Guidelines 2014-2020(13)(‘RAG 2014’)(14)and of paragraph 19(29) of the Regional Aid Guidelines applicable as from 1 January 2022(15)(‘RAG 2022’) on 28 April 2022. Finally, production in the facility started in the last quarter of 2023, with full production capacity planned to be reached in 2026.
(26) The eligible investment costs amount to HUF 51 919,55 million (EUR(16)142.74 million) in nominal value and HUF 50 112,01 million (EUR 137.77 million) in discounted value(17).
(27) Hungary confirmed that the assets to be acquired under the Investment Project are new. Hungary also confirmed that the costs of intangible assets included under the eligible investment costs meet the conditions set out in paragraphs 100 to 102 of the RAG 2014, which are fully reflected in Article 18(5) of Government Decree No 210/2014 (VIII.27.) ‘on the earmarked scheme for investment promotion’ (recital (29)), which provides that, in order to be eligible for the calculation of the investment costs, intangible assets: (a) must be used exclusively by the investor in the establishment receiving the aid; (b) must be depreciated; (c) must be purchased under market conditions from third parties unrelated to the buyer; (d) must be included in the assets of the undertaking receiving the aid and must remain associated with the project for which the aid is granted for at least five years (three years for small and medium-sized enterprises); furthermore (e) for large enterprises, costs of intangible assets are eligible only up to a limit of 50 % of the total eligible costs for the project. Similar provisions are also included in the cash grant incentive agreement.
(28) The measure includes two different aid instruments: a cash grant and a tax benefit, financed by the general State budget.
(29) The cash grant is provided based on Government decree No 210/2014 (VIII.27.) ‘on the earmarked scheme for investment promotion’, a regional aid scheme(18)implemented under Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (‘GBER’)(19), allowing aid for initial investments in a variety of economic sectors. The cash grant constitutes an individually notifiable case of application of that aid scheme, since it exceeds the notification threshold laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER (recital (110)). The cash grant incentive agreement (the ‘Incentive Agreement’) was signed on 22 December 2021 between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (aid grantor) and Rubin and is conditional upon the Commission’s approval of the aid.
(30) The tax benefit, by the Ministry of Finance (aid grantor) is based on Act LXXXI of 1996 ‘on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax’(20)and Government Decree No 165/2014 ‘on Development Tax Incentive (VII.17.)’(21), an aid scheme(22)implemented under the GBER, allowing aid in the form of tax benefits for certain investments. The tax benefit constitutes an individually notifiable case of application of that aid scheme since the total aid amount (cash grant and tax benefit) exceeds the notification threshold laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER (recital (110)). The annual amount of the tax benefit to be utilised may not exceed 80 % of the annual payable corporate tax of the beneficiary. The available tax benefit may be utilised in thirteen consecutive fiscal years at most, but no later than in the sixteenth fiscal year (tax year) after the fiscal year when the application is submitted.
(31) Hungary considers that it awarded the tax benefit on 12 December 2021, which is the date on which the Government adopted a decision(23)according to which it ‘allow(s) the Company to benefit from the development tax advantage for its investment…’. That decision refers to a subsequent act setting specific conditions for the granting: ‘The development tax benefit shall be granted in accordance with the conditions laid down in the decision of the Government to be published on the basis of the decision of the European Commission’.
(32) The total notified aid amounts to HUF 15 917,4 million (EUR 43.76 million) in discounted value. The cash grant has an overall nominal value of HUF 16 280,56 million (EUR 44.76 million) and a discounted value of HUF 15 644,30 million (EUR 43.01 million). The projected amount of the tax benefit is HUF 273.10 million (EUR 0.75 million) in discounted value.
(33) The Hungarian authorities calculated the maximum aid amount and the maximum aid intensity for the Investment Project by applying the scaling-down mechanism(24)to the total eligible investment costs in discounted value and considering the regional aid ceiling of 50 % set by the regional aid map 2014, which it considered as the only regional aid map applicable to both components of the aid (recital (91))(25). Based on that calculation, the maximum aid amount could not exceed HUF 15 976 million (EUR 43.9 million) in discounted value i.e. the maximum aid intensity allowed for the Investment Project was considered to be 31.88 %. The notified aid amount, as indicated at recital (32), is below that maximum, and corresponds to an aid intensity of 31.76 %.
(34) In light of the provisions of the Incentive Agreement, neither the maximum aid amount (recital (33)), nor the maximum aid intensity (recital (33)) would be exceeded if, for instance, the amount of eligible expenditures deviates from the estimated amount. This is because, according to the Incentive Agreement, (i) even if the actual investment costs of the investment increase compared to the eligible costs set out in the Incentive Agreement, the beneficiary will only be entitled to the cash grant maximum aid amount specified in the agreement; (ii) it is the Commission’s decision that determines the aid intensity of the total State aid that may be granted to the investment (including the tax benefit); and (iii) no amendment affecting the essential content of the Commission decision is possible under the Incentive Agreement without a prior notification to the Commission.
(35) The Hungarian authorities confirmed that the measure cannot be cumulated with other State aid orde minimisaid covering the same eligible costs.
(36) The Hungarian authorities explained that within the waves under implementation, mentioned at recital (18), GKN Automotive had already closed several sites and had concrete plans to [transfer the business of] two further sites in […] Europe, after the production capacity of those sites had been transferred to the new Hungarian plant.
(37) Section 14(1)(d) of Government Decree No 210/2014 and Section 4(3) of Government Decree No 165/2014 provide that the cash grant and the tax benefit can only be applied and maintained if the investment is maintained in the area concerned for at least five years after its completion. The Incentive Agreement also includes an equivalent obligation on the beneficiary until the end of the monitoring period, which is set at five financial years after 31 December 2026, the deadline for the completion of the investment(26).
(38) Hungary confirmed that the beneficiary would provide a financial contribution of at least 25 % of the eligible costs through its own resources or by external financing, in a form that is free of any public financial support. This results from the Hungarian legislation applicable to the measure, namely Section 4(7) of Government Decree No 165/2014 (VII. 17.) and Section 14(1)(e) of Government Decree No 210/2014, as well as from the Incentive Agreement.
(39) The Commission assessed the compatibility of the aid with Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU, as interpreted by the RAG 2014 and the RAG 2022. The application of the two RAGs is related to the different granting dates of the cash grant and the tax benefit. The cash grant was granted before 31 December 2021, and therefore falls within the scope of RAG 2014. For the tax benefit, the Commission, at recital 111 of the Opening Decision, preliminarily considered that the tax benefit, had to be assessed based on RAG 2022. This was because the Government decision of 12 December 2021 presented by Hungary as the tax benefit granting act, could not qualify as such because it does not identify the relevant aid and refers to a further granting decision to be issued following the Commission’s decision on the aid. Therefore, the Commission preliminary considered that the aid would be granted after 31 December 2021.
(40) According to section 3.5 of the RAG 2014 and section 5.2 of the RAG 2022, regional aid can only be found compatible with the internal market if it has an incentive effect. An incentive effect is present when the aid changes the behaviour of an undertaking in a way that it carries out additional activity contributing to the development of an area that it would not have carried out, or would only have done in a limited or different manner (i.e., scenario 1 situation, investment decision), or in another location (i.e., scenario 2 situation, location decision), if the aid was not granted (Opening Decision, recital 119).
(41) In order to demonstrate the existence of a substantive incentive effect, the Hungarian authorities invoke a scenario 2 situation (location decision) (Opening Decision, recital 32) and claim that, without the aid, the investment would have taken place in Türkiye (Eskişehir) because it would have been more profitable to invest in that location as compared to the Hungarian location.
(42) The Commission expressed the preliminary view that, following GKN Automotive’s initial country assessment in November 2019, where seven countries-of-interest(27)had been identified and compared, with Poland, Hungary and Slovakia at the top of the list (recital 43 of the Opening Decision) and a 1-year site selection analysis in these three ‘shortlisted’ countries (Section 2.13.2.2. of the Opening Decision), Melrose decided to invest in Hungary on 9 December 2020 through the approval of the capital expenditure request (‘CER’) for the Investment Project. The CER reads: ‘the target of this project is to generate value by consolidating the current footprint in … into a new site located in Hungary.’ The financial summary on that same document concluded on a payback period of [5.4 – 7] years without any consideration of any aid.
(43) According to Hungary, the decision on the location for the investment was adopted only on 9 December 2021 by GKN Automotive and relied on State aid from Hungary to locate the Investment Project in that Member State rather than in an alternative location in Türkiye. More specifically, according to Hungary, Melrose’s approval of the CER on 9 December 2020 only constituted a preliminary securing of the project funding, considering the location of that investment in Hungary as a working hypothesis, and did not constitute a decision on the investment location, but left the door open to a further site selection decision by the GKN Automotive Executive Team (‘GKN Automotive ET’), that latter team being the sole decision-making body for the site selection workflow. Hungary had also submitted that, before the approval of the CER, the business case review for the Investment Project was carried out as part of the annual budget review meeting between GKN Automotive and Melrose on 12 November 2020. In that meeting Melrose had requested that the financial assumptions for the Investment Project in Hungary be improved to reduce the [5.4 – 7]-year payback period of the project to below [4.5 – 5.4] years, which Hungary had submitted is a decisive threshold for Melrose’s investment policy. On that basis, as of December 2020, GKN Automotive explored the possibility to carry out the investment in Türkiye. In January 2021, GKN Automotive took a preliminary location decision in favour of Hungary, conditional upon receiving the full amount of incentives in Hungary, and in December 2021 it adopted a final location decision in favour of Hungary, finding that Hungary was ‘still considered the preferred option concerning non-financial indicators, especially considering the current political and economic volatility in Turkey’ and that the Hungarian incentives that were considered ‘likely to be approved’, ‘will largely offset [the] financial advantage of Turkey […] over Hungary and will enable the project to meet the target payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years ([5.5 – 7.1] years w/o incentives)’. Following the final decision of 9 December 2021, GKN Automotive discontinued the preparatory activities in Türkiye and purchased a plot of land in Hungary for the purposes of the Investment Project (recitals 76 and 80 of the Opening Decision).
(44) The Commission questioned whether GKN Automotive had, in its attempt to reach the financial target imposed by Melrose (if existent), the mandate and the freedom to change the location as presented in the CER (recital 133 of the Opening Decision). In this context, the Commission also noted, at recital 134 of the Opening Decision, that the language of the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, which identify the approval of the land selection by Melrose as one of the next steps (recital 50 of the Opening Decision), seemed to point to Melrose as the decision-making body with respect to site selection for the Investment Project. It also appeared that Melrose’s approval was required for the aid application documents (recital 68 of the Opening Decision). In the presentations for the ‘Land Selection Review’ meeting of 20 January 2021 and the ‘Land Selection Decision’ meeting of 29 January 2021 (recitals 67 and 68 of the Opening Decision), there was also reference to an alignment of the final decision with Melrose and Hungary explained that once the GKN Automotive ET took the location decision in December 2021, it communicated it to the Melrose leadership and that the Melrose leadership ‘did not raise objections’(recital 79 of the Opening Decision).
(45) The Commission expressed the preliminary view that, if GKN Automotive had to work within the scope of the approved project description, it could be that Türkiye was only established as a counterfactual location for the purposes of enabling GKN Automotive to demonstrate the requisite incentive effect and hence to receive regional aid for the investment, rather than as a genuine counterfactual of where the Investment Project would take place in the absence of aid. The Commission also noted that the beneficiary was fully aware that, in the context of the relocation, to qualify for regional aid, it needed to present a scenario 2 counterfactual for the Investment Project, as it had been in contact with the Hungarian authorities responsible for State aid matters (recital 133 of the Opening Decision). Indeed, following some preliminary discussions between GKN Automotive and the Hungarian authorities on the incentives available for the Investment Project (recital 51 of the Opening Decision), on 26 August 2020, the Hungarian Promotion Agency (‘HIPA’) had warned GKN Automotive, by e-mail, that to receive the Commission’s approval on the relevant State aid ‘we would have to prove that there is no casual(28)relation between the potential state aid and the closure of an activity in an EEA country. Considering all the above, based on our consultation with the Hungarian State Aid Monitoring Office, we do not think that this statement may be underpinned in this case’ (recital 52 of the Opening Decision). On 5 November 2020, HIPA had provided an indicative incentive offer for a cash grant of EUR [9 – 13] million and a tax benefit of EUR [18 – 25] million (which corresponded, altogether, to the applicable regional aid ceiling), which referred to the Investment Project identifying Poland and Slovakia as alternative locations. The same HIPA e-mail transmitting that indicative offer also reads: ‘We are also open to facilitate a joint meeting with the State Aid Monitoring Office, in order to take a closer look on the relocation matters, which might serve as a good guidance during the notification procedure towards the European Commission’ (recital 53 of the Opening Decision).
(46) The Commission harboured serious doubts that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years constituted a determinative factor, prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision on the Investment Project. The Hungarian authorities had not provided any evidence, contemporaneous to the events in question, confirming the relevant payback period, nor any material to substantiate the argument that Melrose had requested that the payback period for the investment in Hungary be improved to reach the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target. The Commission also noted that it would expect to find some reference to such [4.5 – 5.4]-year requirement or to the efforts to reach it in the CER for the Investment Project or in the more detailed description attached to it (i.e. the presentation used at the meeting with Melrose on 12 November 2020) (recital 135 of the Opening Decision). This was also based on the fact that, in the capital expenditure request for another project of much lower cost, submitted by Hungary, the Commission found clear reference to efforts required to reduce the payback period, which in that case was already below [4.5 – 5.4] years. The Opening Decision also refers to the fact that the CER did not refer to Hungary as only being a ‘working hypothesis’ and to the fact that the wording(29)of the 12 November presentation, annexed to the CER, points to a location decision to be taken by Melrose (recital 57 of the Opening Decision). That presentation also includes a clear request to ‘Approve [Investment Project](30)business case with a payback of [5.4 – 7] years(31), recurring cash savings of GBP [50 – 65]m and total one-off costs of GBP [220 – 400]m’ (of which […] % constitutes severance payments) (recital 54 of the Opening Decision).
(47) The Commission questioned the existence of a strict investment policy requiring a maximum payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years that would have been applicable to the relevant decision-making process also on the basis of the pieces of evidence listed at recital 136 of the Opening Decision (recital (138)).
(48) As to the counterfactual scenario involving a location of the investment in Türkiye, the Commission acknowledged the further documentary evidence as of December 2020 (recital 131 of the Opening Decision) from which it appears that a location in Türkiye, as an investment location, was compared with the selected region in Hungary, in the context of the preliminary location decision in January 2021 and of the final location decision in December 2021. However, for the reasons set out at recital (50), the Commission could not establish that Türkiye was a genuine counterfactual location in which, in the absence of the Hungarian aid, the Investment Project would have taken place.
(49) The Commission noted that it was not clear on what basis in November/December 2020 Türkiye evolved as the only counterfactual location for the Investment Project to be further explored. GKN Automotive had excluded Türkiye as a potential location for setting up new plants(32)in the initial country assessment in November 2019 as it considered that it presented political risks. A presentation dated 13 November 2019 shows that GKN Automotive’s existing site in Eskişehir (Türkiye), was evaluated at an initial stage of the assessment, with a significant expansion ‘potentially attractive because of [the] ultra-low-cost status’. At the same time, it was considered that ‘[the] political stability of [the] country poses a significant risk’, and that ‘OEM investment decisions in Turkey [are] currently in [the] process of reconsideration/cancellation because of country risk’. The suggested future for Eskişehir was ‘No change’. As a consequence, Türkiye was not further considered amongst the countries-of-interest to be scored and compared (recital (42)). One year later, Türkiye reappeared in the process together with Poland, Slovakia, Morocco and Serbia and very quickly evolved as the only alternative to Hungary that was explored, without any evidence of follow-up for any of the other locations. Hungary had explained that due to the comparable cost of the Investment Project between Hungary and either Poland or Slovakia, changing the location to either of those latter countries was not expected to yield significant financial benefits. It also explained that Morocco and Serbia were not considered due to the advantages offered by the already existing local footprint in Türkiye. Since the existing operations in Türkiye are limited in size in comparison to all of GKN Automotive’s other sites, the Commission raised serious doubts as to whether those existing operations could actually represent a decisive factor to opt for Türkiye as the only alternative location to Hungary, with no need to perform any comparison with the other possible best cost locations. The Commission noted in this context that Romania and Bulgaria had also been identified among the countries-of-interest in the initial country assessment (recital (42)) as being very attractive locations in terms of costs. Although those two countries were eventually not shortlisted, it was not clear why they were not reconsidered as ultra-low-cost locations.
(50) Even if Türkiye had been analysed as a genuine alternative between December 2020 and December 2021, it was not clear whether Türkiye presented a real counterfactual which GKN Automotive and/or Melrose, in December 2021, would have selected in the absence of State aid in Hungary. The Commission considered that Hungary did not sufficiently substantiate how the political risks, which had been evaluated as a deterrent factor in 2019 (recital (49)), had changed by December 2020, when Türkiye was re-introduced as an alternative location. Hungary did not provide a detailed risk analysis, report or other document concerning the 2019, 2020 and January 2021 assessments of the political and operational risks in Türkiye, nor did Hungary provide sufficient explanations as to why Melrose and/or GKN Automotive considered the political situation less volatile in December 2020 or January 2021 as compared to 2019 (recitals 143 and 144 of the Opening Decision). Given GKN Automotive’s view on the political and economic volatility in Türkiye at the end of 2021 and the increased perceived risks(33), the Commission raised doubts that Türkiye was a realistic investment option and preliminarily considered that GKN Automotive would have invested in Hungary in any event (recitals 78 and 144 of the Opening Decision). The Commission also questioned the underlying reasoning of the consideration in December 2021 that Hungary was the preferred option since Hungarian incentives ‘will largely offset the financial advantage of the Turkey option’, given that the financial advantage of the location in Türkiye (in terms of NPV) was only partially offset (less than 50 %) by the aid offered by the Hungarian authorities (recital 145 of the Opening Decision).
(51) The Commission expressed doubts on the proportionality of the aid amount in view of its doubts on incentive effect but also in light of the uncertainties related to the size of the investment.
(52) For the size of the investment, the Commission noted that the projected production volume of the site to be established under the third wave seems to have changed significantly between the initial Wave three and the New wave three whereas the land and building requirements, which are the basis for the capital expenditure considered in the NPV, were not amended. The Commission also noted that the time frame considered for the NPV calculation presents discrepancies with regards to the indicated timing of start of production and of reaching full production capacity, as presented by the Hungarian authorities. In addition, given that (i) the past actual production of the two existing sites to be relocated as a result of the Investment Project appeared to be below the capacity created with the Investment Project and (ii) the forecasted sales quantities of the Investment Project in the years of full production, as shown in the NPV analysis, appeared to be below the capacity created with the Investment Project, the Commission could not confirm that the capital expenditure to set up the Investment Project was realistic. In this context, the Commission could not exclude that the Investment Project was planned to accommodate further transfers under the scope of Waves four to six of the Strategy. However, the Hungarian authorities explained that there are no concrete plans to implement those waves. The Commission also noted that a production facility of lower capacity adjusted to the sales needs would require a lower cost to be considered in the NPV calculation, which could affect the NPV gap between the two locations and might impact the proportionality assessment (recital 165 of the Opening Decision).
(53) In view of its doubts on the incentive effect of the aid and the credibility of the counterfactual, the Commission could not conclude on the lack of potential negative effects of the aid (Section 3.3.6. of the Opening Decision), in particular on whether the aid could have been causal for the relocation (Section 3.3.6.4. of the Opening Decision) and whether the aid would contribute to, or reinforce, the creation of overcapacity in a market in absolute decline and have a manifest negative effect on competition in this respect (Section 3.3.6.2. of the Opening Decision).
(54) Hungary submitted a written statement signed on 11 April 2024 by GKN Automotive’s current Chief Executive Officer (‘CEO’), who at the time of the decision-making for the Investment Project was the President of the Driveline Business Unit and member of the GKN Automotive ET. Hungary submits that due to the spin-off from Melrose Group, GKN Automotive no longer has access to documents of its former parent company which could further substantiate the statements made during the preliminary and formal investigation and therefore asked the Commission to take this signed statement into account. Hungary submits that with this signed statement the GKN Automotive’s former President of the Driveline Business Unit and member of the GKN Automotive ET provides a recollection of the decision-making process concerning the location of the Investment Project, which supports the arguments already submitted by Hungary in the course of the preliminary and formal investigation. Specifically, Hungary refers to the following elements in the statement: (i) ‘Neither Melrose, nor GKN Automotive, took the final location decision in the meeting’ on 12 November 2020 and that it was his ‘clear understanding that GKN Automotive had the freedom in its attempt to reach the financial target imposed by Melrose to change the location as presented in the Capital Expenditure Request’; (ii) GKN Automotive ‘would have selected Turkey, even in light of the political and operational risks the GKN Automotive ET had identified for Turkey’‘in case the GKN Automotive ET would have considered there to be a material risk to the approval of the aid’.
(55) Hungary submits that Melrose is a financial investor and as such puts a higher emphasis on financial impacts and generally considers ‘much shorter time frames for payback periods’ for the release of funds than conventional manufacturing companies which consider, for example, long-term strategies when taking investment decisions and, thus, are willing to accept longer payback periods. Hungary considers that decision-making processes of conventional manufacturing companies, as the Commission is used to assessing in its compatibility analysis of other notified cases, cannot be compared to decision-making processes of financial investors.
(56) Hungary reiterates that Melrose was not responsible for the location decision since it does not engage directly in the operational decision-making of its portfolio companies. Melrose’s role in the decision-making process is limited to giving approval on issues of ‘high financial importance’. According to Hungary, Melrose empowers the management teams of the portfolio companies through the use of a Delegation of Authority Policy, for example, to take business decisions. In this context, Hungary submitted the GKN Delegation of Authority Policy (‘DoA’), a document that sets out the approval limits for matters requiring authorisation at all levels of management, up to and including Melrose and that, according to Hungary, (i) demonstrates that the powers of Melrose are predominantly concentrated on financial issues, such as capital expenditure above a certain value, funding and security while matters such as human resources, legal, purchasing and supplier contracts, advisors, consultants and sales agents, customer pricing and contracts are decided primarily within GKN Automotive, with the involvement of Melrose only required when the subject matter is of high financial importance; and (ii) does not relate to operational decisions such as market penetration or the specifics of manufacturing footprint changes (including decisions on [transfer of business] and new site establishments).
(57) Hungary submits that Melrose reviews significant investment decisions to ensure they are adequate and are meeting expected financial performance indicators such as payback periods. There is no formal rule setting forth thresholds in terms of payback period; rather, such thresholds are based on common practice. Melrose considers that, in its role as a financial investor, its main objective is to maximise shareholder value by managing capital allocation tightly, taking a firm view regarding the financial profitability of opportunities to pursue or reject. Opportunities tend to be ranked based on the length of their payback period. To document the internal practice of Melrose regarding the acceptable payback period of projects, Hungary refers to an email of Melrose of 6 August 2021, submitted in the context of the Commission’s preliminary examination of the aid as part of a response to a request for information by the Commission (recital (3)), indicating that ‘… for routine capital equipment, we tend to look at investments with a payback under [2.1 – 2.9] years. For larger purchases we may consider something a little longer but we would not consider anything with a payback in excess of [4.5 – 5.4] years – this is a red line for us and simply wouldn’t be attractive given the constraints on […]. Whilst nothing is documented, we have a strong track record of complying with this general policy and I certainly cannot recall any instances where a payback longer than [4.5 – 5.4] years has been approved’.
(58) The decision-making bodies of Melrose are the Melrose Board of Directors, the highest legal decision-making body, responsible for the strategic management of Melrose and all its subsidiaries, and Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management, the body responsible for day-to-day management of Melrose and for financial oversight of its subsidiaries, such as approval of strategy, budgets, business plans, significant investments and other material decisions. In this context, Hungary clarifies that the entity within Melrose that had the competence to approve the budget of the Investment Project was Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management.
(59) Hungary maintains that in the business case presented to Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management on 12 November 2020, the location of the Investment Project in Hungary was used as a working hypothesis because of the country’s favourable rating in the location selection scorecard on country level (slightly behind Poland) and regional level (better than any other European region, including those in Poland). Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management recognised the strategic necessity for GKN Automotive to consolidate its European footprint to secure the long-term competitiveness, and recognised the need for an initial approval of the funds to allow the GKN Automotive ET to progress with the project. Therefore, it gave its initial approval for the funding. As Hungary submits, at the same time, Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management challenged the payback period of [5.4 – 7] years exceeding the [4.5 – 5.4]-year threshold and asked the GKN Automotive ET to increase the financial attractiveness of the business case to comply with it. In this context, as Hungary submits, GKN Automotive was forced to reconsider the project scope, and, therefore, the location, as a way to address Melrose’s request. On this basis, the GKN Automotive ET tasked the Site selection project team(34)to elaborate the scenario of pursuing the Investment Project in Türkiye.
(60) Hungary explains that there are no meeting minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020. Hungary submits a written statement regarding that meeting, which was prepared in January 2023, and signed on 10 February 2023 by the Melrose and GKN Automotive participants to that meeting, in order to clarify the nature of the discussion and decisions taken during the part of the meeting which related to the [Investment Project] Business Case Review (‘retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020’). According to this statement, during that meeting, ‘[a member of Melrose] raises concerns about the financial viability of the business case on the basis that the payback period exceeded [4.5 – 5.4] years. He elaborated that a long payback period would mean Melrose Industries may not see a full return on their cash investment on the project during their period of ownership. Nevertheless, all participants of the meeting agreed on the strategic necessity of the project to future proof the GKN Driveline business, notwithstanding that the payback was less attractive than would ordinarily be considered acceptable. Following discussion, the Melrose Industries representatives signified their approval of the project business case, thereby permitting the project to proceed on the basis of the project budget. However, they tasked the GKN Automotive team to revisit the project assumptions to identify ways to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years by increasing value and/or reducing cost’.
(61) Hungary submitted an email of 9 December 2020 from Melrose to GKN Automotive attaching the signed CER, which reads: ‘please note the following comments: As discussed in the budget review, we are in agreement with the concept/big picture. Therefore, we have signed the form. However, this is not a blanket approval to spend £[220 – 400]m. We expect to be updated as each element progresses and as the business case becomes clearer, for example £[…]m for […] will almost certainly not be the final number etc. So please keep us updated on each element, and break down as appropriate – perhaps separately for each stage you have identified’. Hungary submits that this email clearly stipulated conditions to the approval of the business case by Melrose. Melrose did not provide ‘a blanket approval to spend £[220 – 400]m’ and Melrose approved the request as they were ‘in agreement with the concept/big picture’ but expected ‘to be updated as each element progresses and as the business case becomes clearer’.
(62) Hungary agrees with the Commission’s observation at recital 128 of the Opening Decision that the language of the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 could suggest that Melrose was the decision-making body with respect to site selection for the Investment Project. However, in the context of the explanations provided on the involvement of Melrose in the decision-making of its portfolio companies (recital (56)), Hungary submits that all references to the land selection approval by Melrose in the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 are only to be considered within the broader context of the overall business case review and should be read as ‘document for Melrose approval of the business case with Hungary as a working hypothesis for the investment location’. Those documents only reflect the discussions within the GKN Automotive ET. It was the GKN Automotive ET that proposed the option to pursue the Investment Project in Hungary as part of the overall business case which was presented to Melrose on 12 November 2020. The presentation for that meeting documents the information presented to Melrose on that date, showing that GKN Automotive ET requested from its shareholder a decision to ‘Approve [Investment Project] business case with a payback of [5.4 – 7] years…’. Hungary explains that the GKN Automotive ET did not ask to approve Hungary as an investment location.
(63) Hungary explains that GKN Automotive reached out to a consultancy firm to solicit external support on location and incentives-related services. The Hungarian authorities submitted a service request sent to the consultancy firm on 27 November 2020, that in their view, clearly shows that it was the understanding of the Site selection project team at the time that ‘no definite decisions for the project or a site have been made’. Hungary submits that this service request also shows that no location decision had been taken, which is further supported by a meeting set up on 16 November 2020 – two working days after Melrose had challenged the business case for the Investment Project – in which the Site selection project team discussed how to improve the financial viability of the project, including investigation of potential alternative locations (recital 59 of the Opening Decision).
(64) Hungary also commented on the Commission’s observation, at recital 134 of the Opening Decision, that it appears that the aid application documents submitted to the Hungarian authorities were also subject to Melrose’s approval. Hungary submits that indeed such a reference appears in the presentation for the Land Selection Decision meeting of 29 January 2021. However, this concerned a proposal of the Site selection project team to the GKN Automotive ET, with which the Site selection project team ‘wanted to test Melrose’s sensitivity to the involvement of any political stakeholder’. The Site selection project team was seeking guidance from GKN Automotive ET whether to share the aid application documents with Melrose. Hungary submits that that proposal did not convert into a task, as presented in the meeting minutes, where the review of aid application documents by Melrose was not mentioned.
(65) Hungary also submits that the formulations from presentations and meeting minutes related to GKN Automotive ET meetings demonstrate the level of involvement of Melrose in the project and reiterates its position that Melrose did not decide on the location. For instance, in the meeting on 29 January 2021, the GKN Automotive ET intends to ‘align final decision and outcome of business case challenge with Melrose’. This means that the final location decision taken by the GKN Automotive ET should be communicated to Melrose as part of the business case review. In the meeting minutes, which contain conclusions drawn in the meeting, Melrose is not mentioned in any action point at all. The minutes from the meeting on 9 December 2021, during which, according to Hungary, the final location decision was taken, mention that the GKN Automotive ET have to ‘inform Melrose about conclusion about final location decision’. Hungary submits that this clearly means that the decision was taken within and by the GKN Automotive ET and without any approval by Melrose.
(66) Finally, Hungary submits that if Melrose were the ultimate decision-maker, then it would have stopped GKN Automotive from investigating a potential alternative location for the Investment Project in Türkiye, not to waste resources. In fact, despite being kept informed by the GKN Automotive CEO and the GKN Automotive ET, Melrose did not interfere to stop the investigation of the alternative location. This suggest that should the GKN Automotive ET have concluded that Türkiye was the preferred option, Melrose would have been open to revisit the decision.
(67) Hungary submits that the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 and the email of Melrose of 6 August 2021 constitute contemporaneous evidence of the financial target of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years of payback that the Investment Project had to fulfil at the time of the investment and location decision.
(68) Regarding the Commission’s preliminary view that ‘the payback is not the only consideration for decision-making and was not necessarily to be evaluated wave per wave’ at recital 136, point (a) of the Opening Decision, Hungary submits that all projects resulting from the Strategy were evaluated individually. Whilst there is some element of the total financial benefit of the Strategy that would only be unlocked if the whole – or at least the largest part – of the Strategy were implemented (e.g., full working capital benefit), the waves could be and were evaluated separately for implementation. The Strategy in six waves provides the basis for a more detailed feasibility assessment and eventual setup and approval of separate projects to be implemented under the waves. As an example, Hungary referred to the project ‘[investment project A]’, which was already approved in April 2019 with a payback period calculation specific to that project. Accordingly, all other projects resulting from the Strategy were evaluated individually. Hungary also submits that for each project within the waves, the payback period per project was decisive. Hungary provided, in this context, a summary table(35)listing four projects, three of which were part of Wave one of the Strategy and one concerned another project(36). Those projects have payback periods of respectively of [3.1 – 4.2], [3.5 – 4.4], [2.2 – 2.9] and [2.5 – 3.1] years, which, according to Hungary, shows that the [5.4 – 7]-year payback period of the Investment Project is ‘worse than any other European project in the company’s recent portfolio of projects’.
(69) Hungary also commented on the statements of the Commission at recital 136, point (b) of the Opening Decision that for the several updates of the business case for New wave three, the payback period always exceeded [4.5 – 5.4] years and that, in the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, there was a reference to a target payback period of maximum [5.6 – 7.2] years. Hungary submits that the need to improve the payback period of Wave three (with a payback period of [7.5 – 11] years in the initial bottom-up business case) resulted in a change in the approach (New wave three). After the change of the approach including limiting the number of new sites to one, the project payback period was internally reduced to [a range between 5 – 7] years, which ‘presented only the likely range of the payback period of the business case sensitive to some core assumptions’. Hungary explains that the target of less than [5.6 – 7.2] years as mentioned in the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 is rather ‘GKN project team’s internal task to deliver a project with financials not worse than [5.6 – 7.2] years’ whereas the common financial threshold for projects of similar scope to be approved by Melrose is [4.5 – 5.4] years. Hungary also adds that the GKN Automotive ET was aware of this requirement when formally requesting the CER approval, that meant in this case further revision of the business case. To substantiate the GKN Automotive ET’s awareness, Hungary refers to the table providing the payback period in other GKN Automotive projects mentioned at recital (68).
(70) Regarding the statements of the Commission at recital 136, point (c) of the Opening Decision pointing to the absence of any reaction of the Chief Financial Officer (‘CFO’) to the draft presentation for the 10 November 2020 Melrose business case review, which clearly referred to a [5.4 – 7] years payback period, Hungary explains that the CFO was not expected to comment on such pre-read material, since he had been involved – until that moment – in a series of discussions to prepare that 12 November 2020 meeting, which involved the revision of the payback period. Hungary refers to the latest pre-review of the financials before the 12 November 2020 meeting which took place on 30 October 2020, and provided an invitation to an on-line meeting of 30 October 2020 and a presentation titled ‘Business Case Review: [Investment Project]’. According to Hungary, after the 12 August 2020 meeting, the GKN Automotive ET was not able to reduce the payback period that was, therefore, presented as being [5.5 – 7.5] years at the pre-review meeting of 30 October 2020. Hungary explains that the payback period could be lowered following a discussion with the CFO, who was expecting to push it below [4.5 – 5.4] years. Based on that discussion the Site selection project team worked to make some further improvements on the financials which led the GKN Automotive ET to reduce the payback to [5.4 – 7] years, as it was presented to Melrose on 12 November 2020.
(71) Hungary recalls that the Strategy’s objective was to safeguard GKN Automotive’s competitiveness in an increasingly competitive market environment by consolidating its inefficient and scattered European production footprint and shifting its production capacity to more cost-effective locations. Therefore, ‘GKN Automotive realised that the Company had to proceed with the Investment Project to become competitive in terms of price, to be able to win new businesses on one side and to meet the financial expectations from the shareholder on the other’. Hungary also submits that despite the fact that the payback period was not below [4.5 – 5.4] years, ‘GKN Automotive ET was concerned about the potential negative impact a delay could have on the overall project timeline – and given the project’s important strategic nature, decided to proceed to discuss the business case with Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management on 12 November 2020 even with a payback of [5.4 – 7] years.’. With reference to the 12 November 2020 business case review meeting, Hungary adds that ‘all participants of the meeting agreed on the strategic necessity to implement the project to secure the future of the GKN Driveline business, notwithstanding that the payback was less attractive than would ordinarily be considered acceptable’. Melrose however, challenged the business case and instructed GKN Automotive to seek further financial improvement. As all financial assumptions were already several times reconsidered and improved, the GKN Automotive ET was not able to further reduce the payback without a fundamental change of the core assumptions, i.e., without considering another potential location. Hungary further submits that GKN Automotive ET concluded based on prior internal discussions and regular exchanges with Melrose Executive Directors & Management, to investigate an ultra-low-cost location to see if a financially more attractive business case exists. As a result, the Site selection project team developed the option of investing in Türkiye, as the alternative ultra-low-cost location, in particular the expansion of the existing operation in Eskişehir. According to Hungary, GKN Automotive’s CEO has kept Melrose updated on the further development of this alternative.
(72) Regarding the lack of evidence of a payback period calculation/consideration for the alternative locations (Türkiye, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia or Morocco) which, according to Hungary, were considered before concluding to promote Türkiye as the only alternative location (recital 136, point (d) of the Opening Decision), Hungary submits that looking into the runner up locations from the initial country assessment (Poland and Slovakia) was not expected to yield significant financial benefits due to comparable cost to Hungary and that other ultra-low cost locations without existing GKN operations were considered less realistic and less viable in terms of fast decision-making.
(73) Regarding the introduction of Türkiye without any assessment in terms of payback period (recital 136, point (e) of the Opening Decision), Hungary emphasises the difference between two workstreams, each with their own evaluation methodology: (i) a ‘general funding pre-approval’ (release of funding) for the New wave three of the footprint transformation in November 2020 and (ii) the business case challenge that initiated further location analysis. The first workstream was based on the payback period method and used an ‘assumed location’ to release funding. The second workstream used the NPV method, which seemed to be more appropriate for long-term decision-making, as the ‘NPV comparison allowed a more nuanced understanding of the impact of cash flows expected in both locations. The company was also informed that NPV comparison was the standard approach required in order to demonstrate a funding requirement, relevant to regional aid.’. Hungary explained that Melrose, as a financial investor is looking to invest, recoup and reinvest as fast as they can, and therefore uses the payback period when it takes a decision. Therefore, GKN Automotive was obliged to calculate the payback period to obtain the approval for the financing. At the same time, after having the approval, GKN Automotive, as a conventional manufacturing company that was looking for a more long-term approach to project investment and seeks a better balance of projects and investments so that their mid- and long-term needs are all taken care of, used in January 2021 the NPV methodology ‘to confirm a location assumption for the project, not to make the final location decision’. Hungary also submits that the presentation for the meeting of 29 January 2021 was superseded by the presentation for the meeting of 9 December 2021, the latter featuring a more comprehensive report featuring both payback period and NPV comparison of the final two locations, that was the basis of the final location decision on 9 December 2021, in favour of Hungary assuming the full amount of aid that allowed to meet the payback threshold of [4.5 – 5.4] years and taking into account both financial and non-financial factors. NPV is also commonly used by GKN Automotive in other contexts such as new business acquisition. In this respect, Hungary points out to the Commission that for other large investment projects, where the beneficiaries were conventional manufacturing companies, the decisions were taken on the basis of NPV calculations, not on the basis of payback periods.
(74) Hungary therefore considers that the payback period method appears to be less appropriate for long-term strategic decisions and they believe that the NPV analysis better enabled GKN Automotive’s leadership to understand location specific costs and benefits as well as performance drivers over the whole project lifetime. In their view, it was not necessary and not correct to use the payback period method in the location analysis conducted after Melrose had challenged the business case for the Investment Project.
(75) Regarding the observation of the Commission that the payback period included in the CER of November 2020 did not take account of revenues from sale of land and buildings in the two existing production facilities that were to be relocated to Hungary (recital 136, point (f) of the Opening Decision), Hungary submits that it is common practice within GKN Automotive not to consider those elements in project business cases. As to the CER not taking account of the aid amount of the indicative aid offer, Hungary submits that GKN Automotive acted prudently as at the time of the business case review the aid was not considered certain. Furthermore, as Hungary submits, GKN Automotive was aware that because of its intended relocation from other European sites any aid would require approval by the Commission.
(76) Hungary concludes that the payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years was a decisive criterion with regard to the notified measure. Melrose’s expectation was clearly to improve payback (i.e., stay under the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback threshold). The final location decision to invest in Hungary was taken on 9 December 2021 by the GKN Automotive ET, more than a year after the initial business case had been challenged on 12 November 2020. On 9 December 2021, the Investment Project in Hungary was expected to result in a payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years (below the target of [4.5 – 5.4] years) considering the incentives (and in a payback with [5.5 – 7.1] years without incentives). As the GKN Automotive ET managed to stay under the threshold of [4.5 – 5.4] years payback period fulfilling thereby the shareholder’s request from the business case challenge of 12 November 2020, it did not have to request a further approval from Melrose, and only informed Melrose of the final location.
(77) Finally, Hungary expresses concern with regard to the Commission’s assumptions that a formal investment policy would have needed to be in place for Melrose to be able to challenge the business case for the Investment Project. Even if there was no formal investment policy requiring a payback of below [4.5 – 5.4] years, as the Commission assumes, Melrose as an owner could still have requested GKN Automotive to improve the financial viability of the Investment Project.
(78) Hungary submits that in order to further reduce the payback period after Melrose had challenged the business case, GKN Automotive had to fundamentally change the core assumptions and thus consider another potential location through investigation of an ultra-low-cost location to see if a more attractive business case existed. In this context, a multi-stage selection process was conducted that involved an analysis of location-specific costs, exclusion of other low-cost countries previously considered (because of costs comparable to Hungary), consideration of ultra-low-cost locations and selection of an ultra-low-cost location in which the Investment Project could realistically be implemented in the time frame required.
(79) Hungary submits that at the time when the Strategy was drawn up, Türkiye had been identified as having the lowest cost/revenue ratio amongst GKN Automotive’s existing sites. In November 2020, when Melrose asked to improve the payback period, Türkiye was considered as a priority option to be explored. Poland and Slovakia, countries previously shortlisted, were not considered as the investments in those locations would involve comparable costs to an investment in Hungary. Other ultra-low-cost options such as Serbia, Morocco, Romania and Bulgaria, which according to Hungary had all to a certain extent been considered at various stages in the location selection process, would have required additional effort extending the lead time for decision-making and ultimately the start of production. At this stage of the project, only an investment in Türkiye, in the region where GKN Automotive had already been operating, was feasible, given the presence of a local team that could meet the expected timeline for the Investment Project. Even though the existing operation in Türkiye was limited in terms of volumes, the site had continuously demonstrated a very good operational performance and was highly cost competitive in comparison to other existing sites of GKN Automotive and could therefore have been a viable nucleus for further expansion of the local footprint. Thus, Türkiye emerged as the most feasible option to consider further at that point of time.
(80) Hungary provided two invitations to online meetings of 19 November 2020 and 4 December 2020 referred to as ‘catch-up call’ between two GKN Automotive individuals involved in the Investment Project and an invitation to an online meeting invitation of 10 December 2020 involving GKN Automotive staff involved in the Investment Project and local staff in Türkiye for a ‘quick [Investment Project] review to agree on the next steps’. Hungary submits that these documents provide further evidence of meetings in November and December 2020 in which the Investment Project was discussed, including the ways of addressing Melrose’s challenge to the business case for the project. Hungary submits that over the course of these meetings, along with meetings for which evidence was already provided during the Commission’s preliminary examination, GKN Automotive concluded that ‘(a) only a lower cost alternative location would enable the level of improvements required to meet the target payback, (b) other locations than Turkey would either not materially change the financial viability, e.g., Poland, Slovakia, and/or would be expected to cause a substantial delay to the investment process in the absence of existing local operations, e.g., Morocco, Serbia.’ Apart from the meeting invitations, no further evidence was provided.
(81) Hungary provided an email dated 8 December 2020 where, as follow-up to the activities in the period 1 to 7 December 2020 indicated at recital 60 of the Opening Decision, GKN local staff in Türkiye presented information on the investment history of GKN Automotive in Türkiye (plant established in 2009 and expanded in 2013), on the current site and on investments made by other companies in the area. Hungary submits that this email further substantiates the early internal discussions on locating the project in Türkiye.
(82) Regarding the timeline of GKN Automotive’s preparatory activities in Türkiye and the pre-notification discussions with the Commission, Hungary submits that the counterfactual location in Türkiye began being investigated immediately after the request to explore an ultra-low-cost location. Hungary referred to the update of the scorecard in December 2020 (described at recital 63 of the Opening Decision), to the financial analysis of this alternative scenario in the course of January 2021 and to negotiations with the Turkish authorities in January 2021. Given that the award of the aid offered by Hungary was subject to Commission approval, GKN Automotive could not take it for granted. Therefore, Hungary initiated a pre-notification process with the Commission in June 2021 and the GKN Automotive ET continued to develop the alternative scenario of an investment in Türkiye in parallel, to match the level of analysis carried out for other locations, which included further meetings with the Turkish authorities and a site visit by the VP Operations Europe in July 2021 (the local team visited the site at a much earlier stage in the process) as well as further preparatory activities around land purchase, project planning and building design. Hungary submits that, since GKN Automotive had an existing facility in Türkiye, the majority of this work was done by the local team and the arrangement of senior management site visits was only sensible once the case was developed to an appropriate level of maturity, which was the main preoccupation of the Site selection project team from December 2020 to July 2021.
(83) Regarding the timing of the pre-notification of the case to the Commission, as referred to at recital 140 of the Opening Decision, Hungary submits that the fact that the beneficiary pre-notified the project in Hungary already in spring 2021 does not imply a location decision. Hungary and the beneficiary approached the Commission as early as possible in view of the complexity of the case, which includes a relocation element, on which there was no existing case-law. The beneficiary considered a swift pre-notification to better understand the likelihood of obtaining the aid. Hungary referred to the meeting minutes of the Land Selection Decision meeting of 29 January 2021 which indicated that Miskolc was confirmed as the preferred location of the Investment Project on the assumption that the project would be granted the full amount of incentives. Hungary also referred to the presentation that the Site selection project team prepared for the meeting of 9 December 2021 where the final location decision was taken. That presentation states: ‘Following the further pursuit of national application and EU approval processes to obtain incentive packages, incentives in Hungary are now considered more likely than in January. Incentives will largely offset financial advantage of Turkey option over Hungary and will enable the project to meet the target payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years ([5.5 – 7.1] years w/o incentives)’.
(84) Regarding the perceived political and operational risks of Türkiye, Hungary submits that the political risks in Türkiye had never been considered as deterrent as the beneficiary already has successful operations in Türkiye. In November 2019, the existing GKN Automotive site in Türkiye was evaluated within the Strategy showing very plausible economic results however GKN Automotive adopted a ‘wait and see’ stance potentially considering an expansion of the site, due to perceived risks and other operational factors and based on the fact that the cost was not the important decision factor before the business case challenge by Melrose in November 2020. It was only then that the cost factor/payback period was prioritised over any other considerations. When Türkiye was added to the scorecard assessment in December 2020, it scored the lowest on political and economic risk dimensions, which meant that the internal perception of Türkiye did not materially change and the risks were still considered high in comparison to the other locations considered. However, given the positive experiences from the current operations in Türkiye and the prioritisation of the financial impact to achieve the payback target, the Site selection project team decided that the perceived risk levels were tolerable to pursue the scenario of carrying out the investment in Türkiye, which was highly attractive from a financial perspective. Hungary submits that the heightened risk profile of Türkiye was very much considered in the final location decision in December 2021 and ‘Considering the aid, Hungary was meeting the payback target of Melrose, the purely financially driven shareholder, but was considered by the company’s strategically oriented management favourable from non-financial criteria – including the risk profile – such that these were considered to offset the remaining financial advantage of Turkey’. If GKN Automotive did not consider Türkiye as a viable location, it would not have its presence there in the first place.
(85) Finally, Hungary submits that, in 2020 and 2021, when GKN Automotive was considering Türkiye as an alternative location, other investors (OEMs suppliers or vehicle manufacturers) were considering Türkiye a credible investment location, either to invest or to extend their existing sites, and therefore this confirms in principle the credibility of Türkiye as potential location.
(86) At recital 145 of the Opening Decision, the Commission had questioned the statement of the beneficiary that the Hungarian incentives ‘will largely offset the financial advantage of the Türkiye option’. This was because the incentives cover less than 50 % of the NPV gap. Hungary considers this element as part of the proportionality analysis and submits that the significant advantage of Hungary in the qualitative (non-financial) criteria in the scoring model, such as workforce skills and availability, infrastructure, logistics, proximity to customers, risks, in combination with the payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years with incentives (fulfilling the request from the shareholder to improve the payback period to meet the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target) were sufficient for GKN Automotive ET to take a decision in December 2021 to locate the investment in Hungary. Hungary also notes that according to its experience, State aid is one of the factors, but not always the decisive one that the investors take into account when they decide on the future investment location. Hungary also submits a list of three State aid cases where the Commission approved the aid although it only covered part of the NPV gap.
(87) At recital 165 of the Opening Decision, the Commission raised questions as to whether the aid corresponds to the net-extra costs of investing in the area concerned, compared to the counterfactual in the absence of aid. Hungary submits that the scope of the Investment Project under Wave three and New wave three is different in terms of the products and volume allocation, as Wave three and New wave three are fundamentally different concepts resulting in different footprint targets in terms of number of new sites, product allocation and volume/capacity per site. Space requirements are thus not comparable. Hungary notes that production of propshafts has a significantly higher space requirement than production of sideshafts. Whereas sideshafts are approximately 0.5 meters long (they bridge the distance from the transmission in the centre of the car to the wheels), propshafts can be up to three meters long (connecting the front with the rear axle). Consequently, the equipment and floorspace requirements to produce the same volume of sideshafts and propshafts are higher for propshafts.
(88) Further at recital 165 of the Opening Decision, the Commission questioned the capacity created with the Investment Project. Hungary submits that there are several reasons why the sales and production volumes are lower than the created capacity. Capacity figures present technical maximum outputs under optimal conditions, while actual production volumes are always below technical capacities due to factors such as breakdowns, changeovers, insufficient availability of inputs or manpower. In addition, capacities need to be sized to accommodate temporary peak demands, not annual average demands, and a capacity reserve needs to be maintained for multiple clusters of products. Regarding the volumes of 2020 and 2021 that were submitted during the Commission’s preliminary examination, Hungary submits that these were affected by the demand drop following the COVID-19 outbreak and that volumes at pre-COVID levels are expected over the coming years. Finally, Hungary submits that the size of the floorplan space on the Investment Project in Hungary is comparable to that of the relocated sites. Hungary also repeats that the Investment Project comprises transfers from existing sites to the new site without an increase in capacity across the production network in Europe and that the beneficiary confirmed that no additional production capacities will be installed in the new plant in Hungary as part of this project.
(89) With regards to the discrepancies in the timeframe used in the NPV calculation (recital 165 of the Opening Decision), Hungary submits that the timing in both scenarios is equally delayed. For both Hungary and Türkiye, the first year of production ramp-up was determined to be 2022 (no difference is assumed for start of production) and full production start is planned for 2026.
(90) Regarding the manifest negative effect of relocation, Hungary submits that it is convinced that Türkiye was a credible counterfactual scenario and therefore there is no causal link between the aid and the relocation.
(91) Hungary does not contest the Commission’s view, at recital 111 of the Opening Decision, that RAG 2022 shall apply to the tax benefit and explains that this ‘should not change the outcome of the assessment of the Commission’, given that ‘under the Hungarian regional aid map approved by the Commission for the period of 2022-2027 (SA.63934) Felsőzsolca has the same regional aid ceiling of 50 % as under the previous regional aid map’ and the other conditions set by RAG 2022 are met.
(92) On the Commission’s question at recital 133 of the Opening Decision on what basis, in terms of providing a substantive incentive effect, Hungary provided an indicative incentive offer on 5 November 2020, Hungary submits that the official request for VIP cash grant arrived at the aid grantor on 8 April 2021, containing evidence of the internal location decision-making process. Everything prior to that date was an informal part of the procedure, helping to inform the selection process. They further referred to the limited information available at the time. Hungary also explains that during the meetings with HIPA, the beneficiary indicated on several occasions that alternative locations were being assessed and that the Company was still in the site selection process.
(93) Hungary also submits that at recital 133 of the Opening Decision the Commission is raising points about Hungary providing the beneficiary with information regarding relocation aspects. In this respect, Hungary submits that HIPA, in its quality as granting authority, is obliged to provide potential beneficiaries all information, which might be applicable in a particular case. This is a standard procedure which applies to all applications for State aid. Hungary considers that the beneficiary acted as any other diligent investor that tries to collect all the information before taking a decision. If this information from HIPA were the trigger for GKN Automotive to assess an ultra-low-cost country as an alternative location, GKN Automotive could have started preparing the alternative scenario involving a location in Türkiye already back in August 2020.
(94) Melrose clarifies that on 20 April 2023, GKN Automotive and Rubin were demerged from Melrose to form part of a new independent group of companies, the ultimate parent company of which is Dowlais Group plc. Melrose also clarifies that in February 2023 the legal name of Rubin was changed to GKN Automotive Hungary Kft. with GKN Automotive becoming the sole shareholder in the place of Eachairn Aerospace Holdings Limited.
(95) Regarding the doubts expressed by the Commission on the role of Melrose in the decision-making process, in particular regarding the location decision and the business case challenge, Melrose submits that it operated a decentralised business model with the majority of business and strategy decisions taken by the portfolio company executive and management teams whilst Melrose retained the right to approve or veto certain decisions. Melrose limits its involvement with its portfolio companies to reviewing significant investment decisions to ensure they are appropriate and that they meet the expected financial requirements. By presenting the CER with a business case and summarising financial assumptions for the Investment Project in the meeting with Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management on 12 November 2020, GKN Automotive acted in accordance with Melrose’s approval requirements, as reflected in the DoA, which Hungary submitted with its comments (recital (56)). Melrose understood the strategic rationale for the proposal and the need for an initial approval of funds to allow GKN Automotive to progress with the Investment Project and therefore approved the overall business case while it mandated GKN Automotive ET to identify ways to improve the payback period below [4.5 – 5.4] years. References to Hungary in the business case and the CER were a working hypothesis. GKN Automotive ET had the mandate to lead the location selection and take a decision on the final location, provided that the underlying business case and amortisation timeline would meet Melrose’s financial expectations and approved budget.
(96) Regarding the doubts expressed by the Commission on the existence of a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years as a determinative factor, prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision, Melrose submits that in order to ensure an acceptable return on investment, for large strategic investments such as the Investment Project, there is a well-established internal practice of requiring a payback period of up to [4.5 – 5.4] years and longer payback periods are usually not considered acceptable. As supporting evidence for the existence of such an internal practice, Melrose refers to the email of Melrose of 6 August 2021, submitted in the context of the preliminary investigation, to which also Hungary refers (recital (57)). Melrose also refers to the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020, that Hungary submits with its comments (recital (60)), as contemporaneous evidence concerning the exact financial target that the Investment Project needed to achieve.
(97) GKN Automotive submits that it was the main decision-making body regarding the Investment Project and that Rubin is a subsidiary that was established only when the decision to select Hungary as location for the Investment Project was sufficiently mature. GKN Automotive clarifies that in September 2022, the legal name of Rubin was changed to GKN Automotive Hungary Kft.
(98) Regarding the scope of GKN Automotive ET’s mandate and the doubts raised by the Commission at recitals 133 to 137 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive submits that Melrose, as financial investor, was only in charge of approving the funding for the Investment Project, it did not, however, interfere with the operational aspects, which were fully in GKN Automotive ET’s hands. As the DoA demonstrates, the powers of Melrose concern predominantly financial matters. In this context, GKN Automotive ET developed the business case and all its operational aspects and presented it to Melrose on 12 November 2020 with the CER. Melrose recognised the need for an initial approval of the funds to allow GKN Automotive ET to progress with the Investment Project. At the same time, Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management challenged the payback period and asked the GKN Automotive ET to increase the financial attractiveness of the Investment Project, as evidenced by the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 (recital (60)).
(99) Regarding Melrose’s policy expecting a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years, GKN Automotive refers again to the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 (recital (60)) as evidence for that. Similarly to Hungary (recital (68)), GKN Automotive also provides the payback period for four other European projects in its recent portfolio which show a payback period of less than [4.5 – 5.4] years. GKN Automotive submits that the comparison of the presentation of the latest pre-review of 30 October 2020 (also referred to by Hungary, recital (70)), in preparation for the 12 November 2020 business case review by Melrose, with the final presentation for the business review meeting of 12 November 2020 demonstrates the evolution of the project costs as well as reflects the considerations about the need of decreasing the payback period, pointing to a clear understanding of Melrose’s policy in that respect. Finally, GKN Automotive also refers to the email of Melrose of 6 August 2021, submitted in the context of the preliminary investigation (recital (57)), as contemporaneous evidence concerning the financial targets of Melrose.
(100) Regarding the introduction of Türkiye as the only counterfactual scenario and the doubts raised by the Commission at recitals 138 and 139 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive submits that the decision not to include Türkiye in further stages of the initial location assessment in 2019 was based on the fact that Türkiye fell behind other locations based on a more comprehensive evaluation (which also included strategic and operational factors) despite a favourable assessment in terms of costs. When Melrose challenged the financial viability of the business case, the cost factor became of pivotal importance in the further location selection to improve the financial viability (payback) and therefore Türkiye became relevant again. Introducing other low-cost locations without existing GKN Automotive footprint was perceived to potentially result in substantial delays to the Investment Project and increase the risk exposure. The local presence and positive experience with existing operations became a decisive factor for choosing Türkiye as an ultra-low-cost option, given the time constraints.
(101) Regarding Türkiye being a genuine counterfactual where GKN Automotive would actually invest and regarding the timeline of activities in Türkiye and the doubts raised by the Commission at recitals 140 to 145 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive submits that at the time of the pre-notification of the aid by Hungary, the alternative scenario of carrying out the investment in Türkiye had already been developed to a considerable degree. Immediately after the introduction of that alternative into the location selection process, the Site selection project team started carrying out the respective procedures for the location to catch up with the level of the analysis of other locations and this allowed GKN Automotive to have comparably developed business cases for Hungary and Türkiye by the time the final location decision was taken. Regarding risks, GKN Automotive submits that both locations showed a significant degree of political risk but not to the extent to threaten the viability of the Investment Project. In Türkiye there has been no disruption nor other adverse effects to the production in the GKN Automotive site. Before the business case challenge by Melrose, Türkiye was a back-up option, partially due to risk considerations. After the business case challenge, this alternative option was revisited as one of the most promising and cost-efficient location whereas the importance of risk was slightly downgraded.
(102) GKN Automotive also submits that the investments of OEMs suppliers and vehicle manufacturers in Türkiye and the positive climate for British companies investing in Türkiye support the credibility of Türkiye as a potential location for the investment.
(103) Regarding the NPV gap between the two locations, GKN Automotive submits that the qualitative factors favouring the location in Hungary were sufficient to mitigate the remaining NPV gap between Türkiye and Hungary under the caveat that the Investment Project would be granted the incentives, which would offset a considerable portion of the gap. GKN Automotive also considers that further project elaborations in both Hungarian and Turkish scenarios throughout the year 2021 demonstrate that GKN Automotive was actually able to improve the financial viability of the scenario involving the investment in Hungary and bring down the expected payback period below [4.5 – 5.4] years considering the award of the aid at the time of the final location decision. Therefore, despite a remaining NPV gap compared to Türkiye, the Hungarian location was able to meet Melrose’s [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period policy.
(104) Regarding the proportionality of the aid, the size of the investment, the created capacity and the doubts raised by the Commission at recital 165 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive repeats the arguments already raised by Hungary on the same issues (recitals (87) and (88)).
(105) GKN Automotive welcomes the Commission’s preliminary view that the aided investment contributes to regional development, the investment is eligible for regional aid, there is need for State intervention and the measure is appropriate. Regarding the potential negative effects of the aid on competition and trade, GKN Automotive welcomes the Commission’s preliminary view that the aid intensity ceiling is not exceeded. GKN Automotive also indicates that it understands that the conclusion on the creation of overcapacity depends on the credibility of the counterfactual scenario, which it reiterates is credible, and confirms that no additional production capacities will be installed in the new plant in Hungary as part of the project and therefore there is no risk of creating overcapacity. GKN Automotive adds that it understands that the Commission considers on a preliminary basis that the aid has no counter-cohesion effect. For a potential manifest negative effect of relocation, GKN Automotive welcomes the Commission’s view that ‘should the counterfactual scenario of implementing the investment in Turkey be considered genuine, the Commission will accept that there is no causal link between the aid offered in Hungary and relocation of activity’.
(106) Hungary notes that the comments from the other interested parties fully align with its comments on the Opening Decision.
(107) For the reasons set out at recitals 97 to 105 of the Opening Decision, the Commission considered that the notified measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, as it was imputable to the State and granted through State resources, was selective, procured an economic advantage to the beneficiary, was likely to affect trade between Member States, and distorted or threatened to distort competition. That assessment remains valid, hence the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes State aid.
(108) If the regional investment aid amount to be granted exceeds the notification threshold laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER, the aid is not covered by the exemption provided by the GBER and has thus to be notified individually to the Commission.
(109) The measure consists of two elements: a cash grant granted before 31 December 2021 (recital (29)) and a tax benefit, which Hungary considers was granted on 12 December 2021 (recital (31)). At recital 111 of the Opening Decision, the Commission raised doubts on that granting date and considered that the aid might not have been granted yet (recital (115)).
(110) In the Northern Hungary region, the applicable maximum aid intensity, at the time of granting the cash grant was 50 %. Therefore, the applicable notification threshold (laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER applicable at the time of granting the cash grant) was EUR 37.50 million, calculated in accordance with the mechanism defined in Article 2, point (20), GBER applicable at the time of granting the cash grant. As from 1 January 2022, the aid intensity for the Northern Hungary region is 60 %.(37)As of 1 July 2023, the Commission increased the notification thresholds in cases with a maximum regional aid intensity of 50 % to EUR 41.25 million and in cases with a maximum regional aid intensity of 60 % to EUR 49.5 million(38). The Commission considers that the cash grant, amounting to EUR 44.76 million in nominal value (EUR 43.01 million in discounted value) (recital (32)), already exceeded the notification threshold for a 50 % region (which was the aid intensity that applied at the time the cash grant was granted) and this meant that the measure did not benefit from the exemption from the notification obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU, regardless of the tax benefit.
(111) The Commission concludes that by making the award of the cash grant conditional upon the Commission’s approval, by adopting the granting act for the tax benefit only once the Commission’s approval is notified, and by having notified the measure, the Hungarian authorities have respected their obligations under Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(1), point (a), GBER.
(112) In derogation from the general prohibition of State aid laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, aid may be declared compatible if it can benefit from one of the derogations enumerated in the TFEU.
(113) In the present case, the measure seeks to promote regional development in an area designated in accordance with Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU. The Hungarian authorities notified that measure on the basis of the RAG 2014. The cash grant constitutes an individual aid granted on the basis of Government decree No 210/2014 (VIII.27.) ‘on the earmarked scheme for investment promotion’, a regional aid scheme implemented under the GBER (recital (29)). The tax benefit constitutes an individual aid granted on the basis of Act LXXXI of 1996 ‘on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax’ and Government Decree No 165/2014 ‘on Development Tax Incentive (VII.17.)’, also a regional aid scheme(39)implemented under the GBER (recital (30)). On this basis, the Commission considers that, Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU, as interpreted by the regional aid guidelines, constitute the appropriate legal basis for assessing the compatibility of the measure.
(114) The Commission preliminarily established at recital 110 of the Opening Decision that the legal basis for the assessment of the cash grant is Article 107(3), point (a) TFEU, as interpreted by the RAG 2014, in accordance with paragraph 197 RAG 2022. The Incentive Agreement for the cash grant was signed before 31 December 2021, conditional only upon the Commission’s decision approving the aid. Neither Hungary, nor any other interested party contested this preliminary view following the adoption of the Opening Decision. For the reasons set out at recital 110 of the Opening Decision, therefore, the Commission concludes that the compatibility of the cash grant should be assessed on the basis of the RAG 2014.
(115) The Opening Decision expressed, at recital 111, the Commission’s preliminary view that concerning the tax benefit, the Government decision as adopted on 12 December 2021 did not constitute a granting act and that only a future Government decision could confer the beneficiary a legal right to receive the aid. Therefore, the appropriate legal basis for the assessment of the tax benefit would be Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU, as interpreted by the RAG 2022. Neither Hungary, nor any other interested party contested this preliminary view following the adoption of the Opening Decision. For the reasons set out at recital 111 of the Opening Decision, therefore, the Commission concludes that the compatibility of the tax benefit should be assessed on the basis of the RAG 2022.
(116) The Commission notes that, in the specific circumstances of the present case, there is nothing that would prevent it from assessing part of the aid on the basis of the RAG 2014 and part of the aid on the basis of the RAG 2022 (referred together as the ‘RAGs’). In any event, the provisions of the RAGs that are relevant for the below assessment are materially identical and, moreover, as clarified at recital (14), Miskolc is eligible for regional aid on the basis of the regional aid map 2014 and also on the basis of the regional aid map 2022. Moreover, the increase of the maximum aid intensity in the Northern Hungary region, from 50 % to 60 % (recital (110)), does not affect the outcome of the overall compatibility assessment, as presented in section 5.4.
(117) In the Opening Decision, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measure on the basis of: (i) the credibility of the counterfactual scenario; (ii) the incentive effect; and (iii) the proportionality of the aid. In addition, the Commission noted that it could not be excluded that the measure contributes to, or reinforces, the creation of overcapacity in a market in absolute decline and is causal to the relocation of activities from another Member State, which would constitute manifest negative effects on competition and trade (Section 2.9). Paragraph 26 RAG 2014 and paragraph 39 RAG 2022 set out the cumulative criteria that an aid measure must meet to be considered compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU. It follows that, if the measure does not comply with one or more of those criteria, the measure cannot be considered compatible with the internal market. The Commission first assessed the incentive effect criterion.
(118) Section 3.5 RAG 2014 and section 5.2 RAG 2022 require that aid has an incentive effect. An incentive effect is present when the aid changes the behaviour of an undertaking in a way that it carries out additional activity contributing to the development of an area that it would not have carried out, or would only have done in a limited or different manner or in another location, if the aid was not granted. The aid must not subsidise the costs of an activity that an undertaking would carry out in any event and must not compensate for the normal business risk of an economic activity.
(119) According to paragraphs 64 and 65 RAG 2014 and paragraphs 62 and 63 RAG 2022, the formal incentive effect requirement is met if works on an individual investment start only after the application for aid has been submitted. As established already at recital 120 of the Opening Decision, this condition is met in the present case as the beneficiary applied for aid on 8 April 2021 (cash grant) and 31 March 2021 (tax benefit), while works on the Investment Project only started on 28 April 2022 (recital (25)).
(120) As there are many valid reasons for a company to locate its investment in a certain region, even without any aid being granted, the RAGs require the Commission to verify in detail that the aid is necessary to provide a substantive incentive effect for the investment. This can be proven in two possible ways (see paragraph 61 RAG 2014 and paragraph 59 RAG 2022), that is to say that the aid: gives an incentive to invest in the area concerned because otherwise the investment would not be sufficiently profitable for the aid beneficiary(40)(scenario 1, investment decision), or gives an incentive to locate a planned investment in the area concerned rather than elsewhere because it offsets the net disadvantages and costs of investing in a location in the area concerned (scenario 2, location decision).
(121) As set out in section 3.5.2 RAG 2014 and section 5.2.1.2 RAG 2022, the Member State must provide clear evidence that the aid has an actual impact on the investment choice or on the choice of the investment location. To that end, the Member State must provide a comprehensive description of the counterfactual scenario in which the beneficiary receives no aid. The Commission must verify that this alternative scenario is realistic and credible. Paragraph 68 RAG 2014 and paragraph 66 RAG 2022 indicate that a counterfactual scenario is credible if it is genuine and relates to the decision-making factors prevalent at the time of the decision by the aid beneficiary regarding the investment.
(122) Paragraph 71 RAG 2014 and paragraph 69 RAG 2022 indicate that for a scenario 2 situation – which is invoked by the Hungarian authorities in the present case (recital (41)) – the Member State could prove the incentive effect of the aid by providing the undertaking’s documents showing that a comparison has been made between the costs and benefits of locating the investment in the assisted region concerned and those of locating the investment in alternative location(s). It is clear from paragraph 70 RAG 2022 and from the Commission’s decision-making practice based on the RAG 2014(41), that such documents should be contemporaneous to the decision-making process concerning the investment or its location. The Commission verifies whether such comparisons are realistic. For that purpose, paragraph 72 RAG 2014 and paragraph 70 RAG 2022 invite the Member State to rely on official board documents, risk assessments (including the assessment of location-specific risks), financial reports, internal business plans, expert opinions and other studies and documents that elaborate on investment scenarios.
(123) To verify the viability of the project in a scenario 2 context, all relevant costs and revenues(42)have to be taken into account, with the exception of possible subsidies available in the alternative location, where this alternative location is in the EEA.
(124) Already as part of the pre-notification exchanges and as further complemented throughout the Commission’s preliminary examination, the Hungarian authorities submitted information documenting the decision-making process of GKN Automotive and Melrose and presented a counterfactual scenario involving the implementation of the project in Eskişehir, Türkiye.
(125) In its comments to the Opening Decision, Hungary maintained its view, as explained at recitals 126 and 127 of the Opening Decision, that the GKN Automotive ET took the final location decision only in December 2021, whereas Melrose’s preceding approval of the CER in December 2020 only constituted a preliminary securing of the project funding and did not constitute a decision on the investment location (Section 3.1.1).
(126) In order to assess the credibility of the counterfactual scenario invoked by Hungary, the Commission examined: (i) whether the GKN Automotive ET could finally decide on the location or had the freedom to change the location of the investment, after the approval of the CER and to what extent a decisive payback threshold of [4.5 – 5.4] years existed (Section 5.4.1.1); (ii) why Türkiye was further investigated as the only alternative location, while other locations also seemed promising from a cost perspective (Section 5.4.1.2); and (iii) whether Türkiye was a genuine counterfactual where the beneficiary would have invested in the absence of aid in Hungary or whether the perceived risks of carrying out the investment in Türkiye might have constituted a deterrent factor so that the investment would have taken place in Hungary even without the aid (Section 5.4.1.3).
(127) During the Commission’s preliminary examination, Hungary provided documents pointing to Melrose as the decision-making entity for the purposes of selecting the Investment Project’s location (recital (44)). Hungary did not provide any contemporaneous evidence on either (i) GKN Automotive ET’s mandate and decision-making power to improve the business case payback period by changing the location described in the CER or by deciding upon the location, (ii) the provisional nature of the CER, or on (iii) discussions regarding the unmet decisive threshold of a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period (recitals (44) and (46)).
(128) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary considers that the Commission’s serious doubts as to the credibility of the counterfactual scenario are caused by an erroneous assumption that the decision-making processes at stake (within a financial group) should follow the same rules and/or rationale that the Commission observes when dealing with ‘conventional manufacturing companies’, which may accept longer payback periods to decide on investments.
(129) The Commission considers this argument irrelevant, as it did not assess Melrose’s or GKN’s decision-making processes concerning the investment and/or the location, based on a comparison with other companies. It is evident from section 3.3.1.2. of the Opening Decision that such doubts resulted from the Commission’s understanding of the beneficiary’s own decision-making process, based on the documents and information provided in the context of the preliminary examination. Furthermore, concerning Hungary’s observation that Melrose would consider ‘much shorter time frames for payback periods’, the Commission notes that in the Opening Decision its doubts were not the result of the unreasonableness of the payback period but rather whether, in the case at hand, there was indeed a stringent requirement for a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period that forced GKN Automotive to re-open the site selection process and identify scenarios in which the investment could bring the required payback within that [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit.
(130) Hungary further argued in its observations on the Opening Decision that the location decision was an operational decision which did not fall within Melrose’s competence, such competence being limited to matters of ‘high financial importance’ (recital (56)). As a supporting document, Hungary submitted GKN Automotive’s DoA. The Commission notes that the DoA lists, among the matters on which Melrose’s approval is required, decisions concerning funding and security as well as capital expenditure above GBP […] (recital (56)). The Investment Project clearly met this threshold. The Commission further notes that, according to the DoA, Melrose’s approval is also necessary for: ‘property transactions’ (with very limited exceptions). Hungary explained that the DoA does not relate to the operational management or execution of the areas covered by DoA, which would include operational decisions on matters such as market penetration, the specifics of manufacturing footprint changes (e.g., [transfer of business] or new site establishments, or product line refurbishments, which would be for the management team of the business to determine). The Commission considers that, while it might be plausible that Melrose is not involved in every operational aspect of areas it decided upon (such as the Investment Project), the key question is whether the decision to carry out the Investment Project in Hungary can be reduced to an operational decision implementing Melrose’s investment decision. For the reasons set out in the following recital, the Commission considers that it is implausible that the location decision can be considered as an operational decision simply implementing Melrose’s investment decision.
(131) First, the argument that GKN Automotive was the entity deciding unilaterally on the location after the CER approval of December 2020 is contradicted by the clear wording of the CER. The relevant capital expenditure referred to a project consisting of ‘consolidating the current footprint in … into a new site located in Hungary’ (emphasis added). The CER budget approval was, therefore, inherently based on the Investment Project being located in Hungary, a location selected in a multi-stage process, for which the investment costs were specifically calculated in the CER. Second, this conclusion is not called into question by Hungary’s argument that Melrose signed the CER being ‘in agreement with the concept/big picture’ – as stated in Melrose’s email of 9 December 2020 (recital (61)). The CER summarises the project ‘consolidating the current footprint in … into a new site located in Hungary’. All further details are provided in the annex to the CER(43). The Commission considers, therefore, that the agreement on the ‘concept/big picture’ should be read as including the location of the Investment Project (i.e. Hungary). Based on the evidence in the case file, the Commission does not consider the choice of the Investment Project’s location as a matter of secondary, operational, importance which could be changed unilaterally by GKN Automotive despite having been approved by Melrose.
(132) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary further commented on the Commission’s interpretation of the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, which seemed to point to Melrose as the decision-making body for the site selection (recital (44)). Hungary considers that those documents, which mention Melrose’s approval of the ‘Land selection’ should be read as referring to such approval within the broader context of the overall business case review and argues that the 12 November 2020 presentation shows that Melrose was only asked to approve the business case, and was not asked to approve the investment location. More precisely, Hungary considers that the relevant sentence should read ‘document for Melrose approval of the business case with Hungary as a working hypothesis for the investment location’(44). The Commission notes, first, that this interpretation goes against the text of the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, which, on the same slide, provides as next steps both the ‘Business Case Update’ for ‘approval by Melrose’, and the ‘Land Selection’ for ‘Approval by Melrose’, thereby indicating that Melrose would be asked to approve the land selection after the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020. Although, taking into account the 12 November 2020 presentation, the Commission could accept that the approval of the ‘Land selection’ in the said slide could be read as referring to such approval within the broader context of the overall business case review, this still does not mean that the location selection remained open, after Melrose had approved the Investment Project. This is all the clearer based upon the reasoning set out in the following recital.
(133) The Commission notes that there is nothing in the 12 November 2020 presentation that points to Hungary being only a working hypothesis or the location analysis not being finalised at the stage when the CER was approved by Melrose. On the contrary, the location was presented as a key element of the Investment Project. In this respect, the first slide has as a subject ‘Recap: [Investment Project] comprises the 2ndwave of consolidating our European footprint[transferring business] … and building a new site in Hungary’(45). The second slide states ‘Miskolc, HU selected as location for new site to take advantage of lower factor cost in Eastern Europe and to balance exposure in EEU countries’. Moreover, the presentation includes three appendices. Two of them are relevant in this context. The first appendix summarises the work on the business case up until the request for its approval, and includes language such as ‘Approach for production transfer bottom up validated and refined’, which includes the ‘Construction of one new site in Hungary (Miskolc area) sized for the scope of this wave’. Furthermore, the appendix explains that ‘[a]ll core assumptions [are] extensively validated, and based on GKN actuals/references, reputable 3rd-party party sources (e.g. Eurostat) or expert interviews (e.g. regarding HUN labour market)’. The third appendix provides an overview of different steps the land selection process had followed, starting from the first selection of the countries in the scope of the analysis until the ‘final recommendation of the focus region and site’. Miskolc was presented as ‘decision proposal’. It is clear, therefore, that Hungary was presented as an inherent element of the business case to be approved by Melrose, as is also evident from the CER.
(134) Hungary did not provide any other contemporaneous evidence that could substantiate its argument that Hungary would only have been an ‘assumed location’, ‘working hypothesis’ or ‘hypothetical scenario’ at the stage when the CER was approved.
(135) On the basis of the above, the Commission finds that the location was an integral part of the CER approved by Melrose in December 2020, and Hungary has not demonstrated, on the basis of credible evidence, that Hungary constituted only a working hypothesis for the location of the Investment Project and that GKN Automotive was entitled to decide on a different location in the absence of further approval by Melrose.
(136) Although, on the basis of the evidence assessed at recital (133), the Commission considers that the location was an integral part of the CER approval of December 2020, the Commission nevertheless considers (in line with Hungary’s submissions (recital 57 of the Opening Decision)) that the summary nature of the CER approval left sufficient scope for Melrose to attach certain conditions to its approval. In this respect, and in light of Hungary’s arguments (recital (43)), the Commission needs to examine whether Melrose’s approval was, nevertheless, conditional on a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback target being met. At recitals (137) to (160), the Commission assesses, therefore, whether such [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback requirement was a decision-making factor prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision.
(137) In the course of the Commission’s preliminary examination, Hungary argued that although Melrose had approved the CER, in the preceding meeting of 12 November 2020 it had challenged the business case since it did not match Melrose’s general practice of requiring a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years for big investments. As noted at recital 135 of the Opening Decision, the Commission could not establish without serious doubts that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years constituted a decisive element to invest or not, prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision.
(138) The Commission considers that the evidence referred to at recitals 135 and 136 of the Opening Decision supports the conclusion that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years was not a decisive element to invest because: (1) the CER was signed acknowledging a payback period of [5.4 – 7] years; (2) the more detailed description attached to the CER includes a clear reference to a [5.4 – 7] years payback period without any reference to a target timeline not exceeding [4.5 – 5.4] years; (3) the Strategy itself(46)recognised that even if some individual waves look unattractive from a payback perspective, the full benefits of the Strategy will not be achieved from a piecemeal approach to projects, suggesting that the payback period was not, in itself, a determinative factor in the decision-making process for individual waves and was not necessarily to be evaluated wave per wave; (4) the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 mentioned a target payback of less than [5.6 – 7.2] years for New wave three, without any reference to a policy of [4.5 – 5.4] years; (5) on 10 November 2020, the Site selection project team sent the draft presentation for the Melrose review meeting, referring to a [5.4 – 7] years payback, to the CFO asking for his comments prior to the meeting with Melrose. Neither Hungary nor any of the other interested parties has submitted any evidence indicating a reply to this request from the Site selection project team, nor any comments nor proposals for amendments by the CFO to this presentation, despite the fact that the draft presentation referred to [5.4 – 7] years payback; (6) in November 2020, after Melrose’s alleged challenge to the business case to meet the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target and in the discussions within the Site selection project team on alternative locations, there is no evidence of a payback period calculation/consideration for the alternative locations (Türkiye, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia or Morocco), which, according to Hungary, were considered before concluding to promote Türkiye as the alternative location; (7) the comparison of Hungary and Türkiye by the Site selection project team on 17 December 2020 and the alleged preliminary location decision in January 2021 were based on the NPV comparison and scoring of the two locations without any calculation or consideration of the payback period. The earliest evidence of a payback period calculation for the alternative investment in Türkiye dates back only to December 2021 – that is: one year after the CER approval and the preliminary location decision of January 2021.
(139) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary maintains that Melrose’s approval of the CER did not constitute a definite approval, but only a pre-approval of the business case to allow the release of funding for the Investment Project to move forward (recital (73)). Hungary also maintains that Melrose challenged the payback period of [5.4 – 7] years and tasked the GKN Automotive ET to increase the financial attractiveness of the business case and to comply with the expected payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years (recital (59)). This position is supported by GKN Automotive and Melrose which provided signed declarations on this part of the decision-making process (recitals (54) and (140)).
(140) The retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 dated 10 February 2023 and signed by representatives of Melrose and GKN Automotive, constitute anex postdeclaration, as a reference document for the Commission in the context of the formal investigation, on what had been discussed during the meeting of 12 November 2020. Those retrospective minutes indicate that ‘[a member of Melrose] raises concerns about the financial viability of the business case on the basis that the payback period exceeded [4.5 – 5.4] years. He elaborated that a long payback period would mean Melrose Industries may not see a full return on their cash investment on the project during their period of ownership. Nevertheless, all participants of the meeting agreed on the strategic necessity of the project to future proof the GKN Driveline business, notwithstanding that the payback was less attractive than would ordinarily be considered acceptable. Following discussion, the Melrose Industries representatives signified their approval of the project business case, thereby permitting the project to proceed on the basis of the project budget. However, they tasked the GKN Automotive team to revisit the project assumptions to identify ways to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years by increasing value and/or reducing cost’.
(141) The Commission considers, first, that this wording in the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020, points to the CER being a formal approval of the business case and Investment Project, and not merely an ‘initial approval’ or ‘pre-approval’ as Hungary argues. In any event, no further final or definite approval has been provided. Indeed, Hungary stated that no further approval by Melrose was needed (recital (76)). Second, the retrospective minutes support the Commission’s view that, due to the Investment Project being of ‘strategic necessity’, Melrose accepted a [5.4 – 7] year payback period, while expressing their wish to still see the payback period improved. In any event, since this declaration was drafted for the purposes of the present proceedings and at a date far removed from the material time, such declaration is of low probative value and, as such, is not capable of calling into question the documentary evidence relied on that is contemporaneous to the events in question. That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that the declaration was made by an individual who participated in the relevant events(47).
(142) The Commission considers that the written statement of GKN Automotive’s current CEO (recital (54)), due to itsex postnature, is also of low probative value for the reasons already stated at recital (141). The Commission also notes that in that statement, GKN Automotive refers to a lack of access to documents of its former parent company, Melrose. However, GKN Automotive also has not provided any information on any reference to contacts with Melrose to obtain relevant documents to further substantiate the statements made during the preliminary and formal investigation. Melrose in its comments also did not provide any contemporaneous documents to support the decision-making process.
(143) With respect to the contemporaneous, documentary evidence, Melrose’s email of 9 December 2020 transmitting the signed CER to GKN Automotive shows that Melrose agreed on the ‘concept/big picture’ of the project, while clarifying that it was not giving a ‘blanket approval to spend £[220 – 400]m’ (i.e. the total cost of the project) as it was expecting the final expenditure values would change compared to those in the CER ‘as each element progresses and the business case becomes clearer’ and that it wanted to be kept updated on each step. Although this document clarifies that there existed a wish to still improve the financial performance indicators of the investment, there is no reference to any decisive target of a maximum [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback or any reference to a scenario that the Investment Project would not be implemented if the ‘target’ was not met. If such payback target was discussed during the business case review on 12 November 2020 as a strict condition for approval, the Commission would expect to find a reference to it, either in the e-mail in which Melrose listed its main comments on the approved CER, or in the CER itself.
(144) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary highlights that in its role as a financial investor, Melrose is mainly interested in the financial profitability of investments. Therefore, financial performance indicators such as the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback threshold are used in the decision-making process ‘based on common practice’; and Melrose ‘tends to look at investments with a payback under [2.1 – 2.9] years’, while for larger/strategic projects a payback above [4.5 – 5.4] years would not be considered. Hungary, in this context, did not submit any contemporaneous evidence but only referred to the e-mail of Melrose of 6 August 2021 (recital (57)), which was drawn up in the context of the preparation of a reply to the Commission’s request for information referred to at recital (3) and, therefore, was only prepared after the period in which the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback was said to be a prevalent factor in such process (recital (59)). The Commission notes that those considerations by Hungary and the declaration by Melrose, even if they could be considered reliable, can only point to a ‘common practice’ but do not provide any evidence as to the decisive elements concerning the Investment Project specifically, for which concrete evidence showing Melrose’s and GKN Automotive’s openness to accepting a longer payback period is available (specifically, the signed CER, the more detailed description attached to the CER, and the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020).
(145) In its comments, Hungary also replies to the other elements, based on which the Commission questioned the application to the Investment Project of a strict investment policy providing for a maximum payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years:
(146) Hungary replies to (recital (68)) the Commission’s argument that even a project that is unattractive from the payback perspective could be approved in view of ‘the full benefits’ of the Strategy, as the Strategy itself recognised (point (3) of recital (137)). The Commission notes that Hungary puts forwards elements that it had already provided during the preliminary examination and submits no further evidence in this regard. The Commission accepts the argument that for implementation purposes, each project can be assessed separately based on its own payback period. However, this does not necessarily mean that each project as such needs to comply with a binding individual payback target. In other words, a general strategy, based on several projects could have a certain target in terms of payback period, while the underlying projects could have different targets, that may be higher or lower than the general target. This is recognised in the Strategy itself, which stressed the need to avoid a ‘piecemeal approach to projects’.(48)
(147) Hungary and GKN Automotive also provided evidence on the payback period of other projects in the form of a table listing four projects (recital (68)). However, the fact that those projects had a lower payback period is not decisive and does not evidence the required payback period for the Investment Project. The Commission notes that, in any event, the projects listed in that table are not comparable to the Investment Project, as they are of much lower cost and concern only the [transfer of business] of certain sites and the transferring of operations to already existing sites, instead of the setting up of a new factory. It is reasonable to consider that the construction of a new establishment could require more time to achieve its financial target than the [transfer of business] of a site, so that it could well fall into the category of cases which, according to the Strategy, ‘look unattractive from a payback perspective’ but which were necessary to unlock the full benefits of the Strategy.
(148) Regarding point (4) of recital (138), Hungary observes (recital (69)) that the payback range of [a range between 5 – 7] years initially identified for New wave three (representing an improvement of the [7.5 – 11] year payback period of Wave three) was ‘only a likely range… sensitive to some core assumptions’. The Commission has no reason to doubt that the change to Wave three was intended to reduce the payback range to approximately [a range between 5 – 7] years. However, the Commission’s main argument was that the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 clearly mentioned a target payback period of ‘<[5.6 – 7.2] years’. Hungary explains that this constituted only an internal target for the Site selection project team, different from the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target needed to receive Melrose’s approval on the CER and well known by the GKN Automotive ET. Nevertheless, no further evidence was submitted as to why the Site selection project team would work towards an internal target different to that allegedly necessary to ensure Melrose’s approval of the project a few months later. Hungary explains that the GKN Automotive ET was aware of the [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit applying to the decision-making process at stake.
(149) The Commission consider that such submissions lack plausibility. First, neither the existence of such a [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit or the GKN Automotive ET’s awareness of it are proven with contemporaneous documents, and cannot be deduced from the mere fact that in the past the company accepted payback values much lower than [4.5 – 5.4] years, for projects that do not appear to be comparable to the Investment Project (see also recital (69)). Second, and in any event, even if it were accepted that such a [4.5 – 5.4]-year requirement was strictly applicable – despite the Strategy’s acknowledgement that certain steps can involve unattractive payback periods – and the GKN Automotive ET was aware of such requirement, it is doubtful firstly, why the site selection team would have proposed, in August 2020, a project with a payback of under [5.6 – 7.2] years, and secondly, why the GKN Automotive ET would have submitted the Investment Project with a [5.4 – 7] year payback period for Melrose’s approval in November 2020.
(150) Regarding point (5) of recital (138), Hungary explains that, from August 2020 onwards, GKN Automotive involved its CFO in an effort to try and reach the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback target. In order to substantiate this element, Hungary provides an interim document of 30 October 2020 which refers to a payback period of [5.5 – 7.5] years. The Commission notes that that document does not refer to any ‘unmet’ payback target. The fact that the payback period still improved from [5.5 – 7.5] years in October 2020 to [5.4 – 7] years in November 2020 does not substantiate that there was a target of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years. It can merely give an indication that GKN Automotive made an effort to reduce the payback period. Furthermore, throughout the entire decision-making process, there is no evidence of any discussion with – or instruction from – the CFO aiming at reducing the payback period to a maximum of [4.5 – 5.4] years. On the contrary, despite allegedly being aware of a strict [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit, the GKN Automotive ET submitted the Investment Project for Melrose’s approval in November 2020 in the CER with a payback period of [5.4 – 7] years and received such approval in December 2020 without any reference to a [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit.
(151) On point (6) of recital (138), neither Hungary nor the other interested parties provided further arguments or evidence. The Commission therefore maintains its view that the lack of a payback period calculation/consideration for the alternative locations (Türkiye, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia or Morocco) allegedly considered in response to Melrose’s challenge of the business case for the Investment Project, supports the conclusion that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years was not a decisive element in the assessment of whether to invest in a specific location.
(152) On point (7) of recital (138), Hungary submits that after having received Melrose’s approval (for which the calculation of the payback period was mandatory), GKN Automotive used the NPV methodology for comparing locations. Hungary argues in this context that in other large investment cases, where the beneficiaries were conventional manufacturing companies, the company decided on the basis of NPV calculations, not of payback periods (recital (73)).
(153) The Commission does not consider this argument to be convincing. First, if GKN Automotive had a binding target of a payback period of a maximum of [4.5 – 5.4] years, for which a location change would be the solution, it is not credible that in January 2021, Türkiye was selected as an alternative location to Hungary without any verification or reference to that location’s potential of meeting that target. Second, even if GKN Automotive had initially assumed that Türkiye was likely to meet the payback requirement, given that it constitutes an ultra-low-cost country, in a situation such as that described by Hungary, where GKN Automotive had to find an alternative location to meet the payback requirement under tight time constraints (recitals (100) and (167)), it is not plausible that the relevant team continued to develop the alternative case involving a location in Türkiye for approximately one year (until December 2021) without being sure that the Turkish location would meet the payback target. Such approach would have risked unnecessarily losing time and might have resulted in the team having to restart the process again with further delays (which would be counter to the alleged urgency of the situation). In this context the Commission recalls that the first verification of the payback period expected in Türkiye was only carried out in December 2021 and it shows payback periods (with and without subsidies) comparable to those expected in Hungary, and in any event not below [4.5 – 5.4] years.(49)
(154) Second, if it were correct that GKN Automotive switched to the NPV methodology in its decision-making, it is not explained why the content of the presentation for the 9 December 2021 meeting (i.e. the alleged final location decision) reintroduces the concept of payback period, by providing that ‘Incentives (…) will enable the project to meet the target payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years ([5.5 – 7.1] years w/o incentives)’. The Commission notes in this context that in its request for information of 30 September 2021, it had enquired about the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target (recital (5)). In its memorandum of 25 April 2024 (recital (13)), Hungary argued that the presentation for the meeting of 29 January 2021 was superseded by the presentation for the meeting of 9 December 2021, with the latter including a payback period calculation. The Commission does not consider this argument to be relevant since the Commission’s doubt related specifically to the period December 2020 and January 2021 when Türkiye was allegedly reconsidered and selected as an alternative location for the Investment Project.
(155) In addition, concerning Hungary’s argument on the appropriateness of the NPV methodology in general and its comparison with other Commission decisions, the Commission considers this is irrelevant since the RAGs require the Commission to assess the decision-making process of the specific project for which the regional aid is notified.
(156) Finally, Hungary argued that GKN Automotive had been informed that NPV comparison was ‘the standard approach required in order to demonstrate a funding requirement, relevant to regional aid’. The Commission considers however that, according to Hungary’s position, supported by Melrose and GKN Automotive, in the period December 2020 and January 2021, GKN Automotive sought to reduce the payback period to below [4.5 – 5.4] years. In that context, a comparison of payback periods would have been relevant, whereas an NPV comparison rather suggests that Türkiye had been introduced with the purpose of building a counterfactual scenario on the basis of which regional aid could be requested in Hungary. This conclusion is, in fact, supported by Hungary’s submission that GKN Automotive conducted the NPV calculation because an NPV calculation was ‘the standard approach required in order to demonstrate a funding requirement, relevant to regional aid’. The Commission recalls in this context that GKN Automotive’s request for incentives to Hungary was updated in this same period, more precisely already on 18 December 2020, with the introduction of Türkiye as the counterfactual location for the Investment Project.
(157) Hungary further refers to a request for consultancy services dated 27 November 2020 (recital (63)) by quoting a single phrase that reads ‘no definite decisions for the project or a site have been made’. The Commission considers, also in light of the other arguments in this section, that this sentence cannot be relied upon as proving that Hungary had not been selected by December 2020. The service request further reads: ‘We have already identified potential locations and land plots for the new site; currently we favor a site in North-East-Hungary among the options considered; no definite decisions for the project or a site have been made’ and then identifies the ‘support needs’ by explaining: ‘We are seeking guidance on the following questions: Validation of current site selection preference; Which forms of state aid may be available to us?; How to best frame the request for state aid considering our scenario (potential relocation, …)?; What supplementary material needs to prepared and what are proven formats for a decision of national and Eu authorities?; Hands-on support in preparation of application material’. The Commission notes on this basis that the service request, seen in its entirety, rather shows that following the business case review of 12 November 2020, the Site selection project team contacted the consultancy firm for support to prepare a convincing State aid case.
(158) With respect to recital 136, point (f) of the Opening Decision, Hungary submits (recital (75)) that it is common practice within GKN Automotive not to consider sales proceeds from land and buildings. As this argument is substantiated by capital expenditure requests from other projects already submitted at the time of the preliminary investigation(50), the Commission accepts this argument but considers this element as non-decisive for its overall assessment as it cannot dispel alone the doubts on the application to the Investment Project of a strict investment policy providing for a maximum payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years. Hungary further submits that the aid amount in the indicative offer was not considered in the calculations by GKN Automotive because it acted prudently and the aid was not certain. The Commission notes that this argument does not change the fact that those calculations formed the basis for Melrose approval of the CER, which, therefore, clearly did not take into account any aid.
(159) Finally, Hungary expresses concerns with the Commission’s assumptions that a formal investment policy needed to be in place for Melrose to be able to challenge the business case for the Investment Project (recital (77)). The Commission clarifies that the Opening Decision is not based on Hungary needing to prove the business case challenge exclusively on the basis of the existence of a ‘formal’ investment policy. Rather, Hungary had claimed that a ‘strict investment policy’ existed in the present case, and which was applicable to the decision-making process. The serious doubts expressed in the Opening Decision are based on Hungary having failed to provide any documentary evidence substantiating the existence of such ‘strict investment policy’. Although the existence of an investment policy (formal or informal) providing for the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target and applicable to the Investment Project might have helped to substantiate the applicability of such criteria to the decision-making process at issue, the Commission has never contested that, in the absence of it, Melrose could have requested that the Investment Project comply with the said target. However, no evidence has been provided that Melrose made such a request and that locating the Investment Project in Hungary would not have been approved unless it respected a [4.5 – 5.4]-year target.
(160) The Commission therefore concludes that Hungary has failed to demonstrate that Melrose’s investment policy included a decisive threshold of a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period and to adduce convincing evidence against the Commission’s understanding that through its approval of the CER in December 2020, Melrose had already decided to invest in Hungary after GKN Automotive had explored Poland and Slovakia as alternatives, and without any consideration having been given to any aid (recital 129 and 136 point (f) of the Opening Decision).
(161) Finally, Hungary reacts to the serious doubts that the Commission expressed at recital 133 of the Opening Decision that GKN Automotive might have investigated Türkiye only for the purposes of being able to present an alternative location as part of the State aid review. Hungary argues that HIPA provided the beneficiary with all of relevant information, including information concerning relocation, in August 2020. Therefore, GKN Automotive could have started preparing the alternative scenario involving a location in Türkiye already in August 2020. While this hypothesis could be correct, it is clear from the evidence submitted that Türkiye was not considered before November 2020. The Commission also notes that in the presentation for the 12 November 2020 meeting, GKN Automotive presented the potential for incentives in Miskolc to Melrose by referring to the aid values in the 5 November 2020 informal offer (recital (45)) and by considering certain key eligibility criteria for receiving aid. One of the criteria reads ‘Investment in new assets in regional aid target region (e.g., Miskolc) that would without a grant financially not [be] viable or would result in a different location decisions (more developed/non-EU)’. There was also a reference to the relocation aspect and the need for Commission approval. In other words, GKN Automotive seemed to be well aware that a counterfactual scenario would be needed for GKN Automotive to be able to receive regional investment aid for the Investment Project. At the same time, no such counterfactual scenario existed at that point in time and consequently no aid was taken into account in the business case presented to Melrose. Considering those observations together with the Commission’s findings on the approval of the Investment Project based on the CER, the Commission considers it plausible that Türkiye was introduced as a counterfactual scenario specifically for the purposes of improving GKN Automotive’s chances of receiving State aid from Hungary.
(162) In any event, it follows from the foregoing, that Hungary has failed to prove, on the basis of clear evidence – including genuine, official and contemporaneous documents related to GKN Automotive’s and Melrose’s decision-making process – that Türkiye constituted a realistic and credible alternative location for the Investment Project in the absence of aid.
(163) At recitals 138 and 139 of the Opening Decision, the Commission raised doubts as to why Türkiye was considered as the only counterfactual scenario for the Investment Project and questioned whether it could be the case, instead, that Türkiye was only investigated for the purposes of being able to present an alternative location as part of the State aid review, and thereby improve the chances of aid to be granted by Hungary in favour of the Investment Project being found compatible with the internal market. Hungary and GKN Automotive submit (recitals (79) and (100)) that Türkiye, with existing operations demonstrating a very good operational performance and a local team matching the timeline, was the only feasible low-cost option in November and December 2020, when the location selection was turned into a purely cost-centred exercise, which would enable the Investment Project to be implemented within the required timeframe. Hungary and GKN Automotive also submit that despite the limited size of the existing GKN Automotive operation in Türkiye, this site has continually demonstrated very good operational performance.
(164) In his signed declaration of 11 April 2024 (recital (54)), GKN Automotive’s CEO explained what had happened in the period just before and after the meeting of 12 November 2020. According to that declaration, between 12 November 2020 and early December 2020, multiple discussions took place between the Site selection project team, the CEO and his colleagues in the GKN Automotive ET on how to improve the project payback period. ‘These discussions took the form of specific project reviews, regular team meetings, individual catch-ups and informal discussions. Scheduled meetings took place in various participant settings on November 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, December 4, 10. Further discussions took place outside of scheduled meetings during this time via phone or when meeting in person at the company’s offices.’ The CEO further declared: ‘during these internal discussions, we reached the conclusion that to improve the project payback to the expected level, we would have to consider an even lower cost location. As “ultra-low-cost” locations, we considered at various stages Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Morocco and Turkey as options. These countries were considered as genuine counterfactuals where the investment project could take place.’
(165) In order to substantiate these arguments, Hungary submitted three online meeting invitations in November/December 2020. Hungary claims that in those meetings, GKN Automotive concluded that Türkiye was the appropriate counterfactual to explore (recital (80)). The meeting invitations relate to meetings on 19 November and 4 December 2020 with the subject ‘catch -up call’ between two GKN Automotive individuals involved in the Investment Project and a meeting on 10 December 2020 involving GKN Automotive staff involved in the Investment Project and local staff in Türkiye for a ‘quick [Investment Project] review to agree on the next steps’. Such documents do not include any reference to locations other than Türkiye or Hungary. Furthermore, neither Hungary nor GKN Automotive provided any supporting documentation or meeting minutes relating to those meetings, which could evidence what was discussed during those meetings and calls.
(166) The Commission finds that, notwithstanding the additional evidence described at recital (165), there is nothing that points to more detailed follow-up on alternative locations, or an actual comparison between alternative locations and Türkiye. This supports the Commission’s conclusion at recital (135) that in December 2020, the location selection process had been finalised and Hungary was not only a ‘working hypothesis’ or an ‘assumed location’.
(167) Regarding the argument that the time factor (i.e. the urgency of the Investment Project) was an element affecting the decision-making process, the Commission notes that, even if this were a consideration, Hungary or GKN Automotive did not submit any document to substantiate this urgency in the period November/December 2020. Nor did they provide any evidence to substantiate that this alleged urgency led to Türkiye being explored as the only alternative location to Hungary, without detailed follow-up on alternative locations, or an actual comparison between alternative locations and Türkiye. Moreover, the Commission finds that argument contradictory to the Hungarian argument that, on 12 November 2020, Hungary was only a ‘working hypothesis’. If it were correct that Hungary was only a ‘working hypothesis’, the project timeline, as set out in the presentation for the meeting of 12 November 2020, ought to have provided for a time period after the CER to investigate alternative locations. The project timeline, however, as it stood on 12 November 2020, refers to a ‘Decision’ and ‘Land purchase, permits, preparation of construction’ in the last quarter of 2020, therefore not leaving sufficient time for investigations into alternative locations.
(168) The Commission also considers that the ‘good operational performance’ of the small site in Türkiye, which has been in operation since 2008, was not a new factor as compared to the situation in 2019, when the option to expand the existing site in Türkiye in the context of the Strategy was discarded. Therefore, the Commission does not consider this an element that could justify why Türkiye was considered the only alternative location to Hungary to be explored. In any event, neither Hungary nor any of the other interested parties submitted any evidence on this element.
(169) The Commission therefore finds that the comments provided by Hungary and the other interested parties do not justify why only Türkiye was introduced as alternative location in an attempt to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years.
(170) In addition, the Commission notes that the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 note that ‘Melrose Industries representatives tasked the GKN Automotive team to revisit the project assumptions to identify ways to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years by increasing value and/or reducing costs’. With the email dated 9 December 2020, Melrose requested to be kept updated. The Commission understands the notion of ‘identifying ways to improve’ to be wider than only pointing to a location analysis. Neither Hungary nor the other interested parties provided any evidence relating to such identification nor any evidence pointing to feedback being provided to Melrose thereon. Also, if reopening the location analysis were the only possibility for increasing the financial attractiveness of the business case (for which neither Hungary nor any of the other interested parties have provided any evidence), the Commission would expect to have evidence of follow-up and a comparison between various alternative locations before GKN Automotive concluded on Türkiye as the counterfactual location for the Investment Project.
(171) Based on the considerations recorded at recitals (127) to (161), the Commission finds that the evidence in the case file does not dispel its serious doubts as to whether the investment and location decision was not taken already in December 2020 without consideration being given to the availability of State aid or to carrying out the investment elsewhere than in Hungary. The Commission could also not establish that Türkiye was considered as an actual counterfactual location where GKN Automotive would have implemented the Investment Project in the absence of State aid from Hungary (recitals (163) to (170)). Rather, it appears that Türkiye had been introduced for the purposes of increasing the chances of the aid from Hungary being found compatible with the internal market.
(172) At recital 140 of the Opening Decision, the Commission noted that the investigation of Türkiye as a counterfactual scenario remained relatively high level until mid-2021. A senior management site visit was only organised in July 2021. At that point in time, the State aid offered by Hungary had already been pre-notified to the Commission and first contacts with the Commission services had been established. However, the Commission acknowledged that, even if Türkiye had originally been introduced into the analysis only for the purposes of improving the chances of the proposed State aid being declared compatible, it might be possible that carrying out the investment in Türkiye subsequently evolved into a genuine alternative location where GKN Automotive and Melrose were prepared to invest. However, for the reasons set out at recitals 141 to 145 of the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed serious doubts that this was the case.
(173) The Commission notes that neither Hungary, nor the interested parties argue that the location in Türkiye ‘evolved’ into a genuine alternative after being introduced for State aid purposes. In the absence of such arguments and supporting evidence, the Commission considers that, for the reasons set out at recitals 141 to 145 of the Opening Decision, and based on the conclusion at recital (171), Hungary has failed to demonstrate to the requisite standard the existence of an incentive effect under scenario 2 as set out in paragraph 61 RAG 2014 and paragraph 59 RAG 2022.
(174) Nevertheless, and for the sake of completeness, at recitals (175) to (182), the Commission addresses the arguments of Hungary and the other interested parties on ‘Türkiye as a genuine counterfactual’.
(175) Hungary and GKN Automotive submit that immediately after the introduction of the alternative location in Türkiye into the location selection process, GKN Automotive started actively developing this option. Hungary also notes that the aid applications of 8 April 2021 for the cash grant and 31 March 2021 for the tax benefit in Hungary did not imply a final location decision for GKN Automotive. The pre-notification of the case to the Commission on 11 June 2021 was necessary for GKN Automotive to understand the likelihood of obtaining incentives but GKN Automotive was in parallel developing the option of carrying out the investment in Türkiye, which, according to GKN Automotive, by June 2021 had been developed to a considerable degree.
(176) From the material available in the context of the preliminary examination, the Commission already acknowledged the documentary evidence as of December 2020 from which it appeared that Eskişehir in Türkiye, as an investment location, was compared with the selected region in Hungary. That documentary evidence showed that until June 2021 the preparatory activities in Türkiye involved contacts with local GKN staff in December 2020 on the availability of land (recital 60 of the Opening Decision), contacts with national authorities in December 2020, January 2021 and May 2021 on the availability of incentives (recital 62 and 65 of the Opening Decision) and engaging a local consultant to deal in the period February to May 2021 with building design and project planning and preparation of a general layout of works to be carried out (recital 72 of the Opening Decision). On that basis, the Commission expressed the preliminary view that the investigation of Türkiye as a counterfactual location for the investment remained relatively high level until mid-2021. The Commission considers that this reality contradicts Hungary’s argument on the time pressure which led to only Türkiye being considered as an alternative location. If indeed the time factor was a consideration, the Commission would expect activities in Türkiye to intensify immediately after Türkiye was selected as the only counterfactual location to explore. Hungary submits that the majority of activities in Türkiye were undertaken by the local team. Neither Hungary nor GKN Automotive, except for one document (recital (81)), bring further evidence of activities during that period.
(177) Hungary further submits that the reason why Türkiye was not included in the shortlist of countries drawn up at the end of 2019 in the context of the Strategy was not that its political risks were considered as deterrent, but the fact that at that time the cost was not the most important decision-making factor for GKN Automotive. Hungary and GKN Automotive also submit that in November and December 2020, the perceived risk levels of Türkiye had not materially changed and were still considered high compared to other locations. However, given that the location selection at the time turned into ‘a purely cost-centred exercise’, GKN Automotive decided that the perceived risk levels of Türkiye were tolerable.
(178) The Commission finds, first, that the alleged preliminary location decision in January 2021 and the alleged final location decision in December 2021 (recital (43)) do not support the argument that the site selection became cost-centred as of November 2020. This is because the decision in favour of Hungary was taken on the basis of non-financial advantages of the location in Hungary, despite a significant financial advantage of Türkiye (in terms of NPV gap) (recital (179)). Second, it is also not further substantiated that the perceived risk levels of Türkiye became, as from December 2020, acceptable to locate this strategic project in Türkiye.
(179) In addition, with respect to Hungary’s and GKN Automotive’s reaction to the Commission’s observation at recital 145 of the Opening Decision which questioned why a financial incentive covering less than 50 % of the NPV gap was considered as to ‘largely offset the financial advantage of the Turkey option’, Hungary considers this as an element related to the proportionality of the aid. The Commission however notes that this element is also relevant for assessing the incentive effect of the aid since the aid should influence the beneficiary’s decision-making. Hungary and GKN Automotive argue that the qualitative criteria in favour of Hungary in combination with a payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years, with incentives, were sufficient for GKN Automotive ET to decide to locate the investment in Hungary (recitals (86) and (103)). The Commission considers this argument as contradictory to the argument that the location selection had turned into a purely cost-centred exercise. In a purely cost-centred exercise, with the NPV as the appropriate methodology after the business case challenge of November 2020 as argued by Hungary (recitals (73) and (74)), this should have resulted in Türkiye being selected, given that even taking the aid into account, a considerable NPV difference remained.
(180) Concerning Hungary’s reference to earlier Commission practice, the Commission notes that each case is to be assessed on its merits and that according to paragraph 68 RAG 2014 and paragraph 66 RAG 2022, a counterfactual scenario is considered credible if it is genuine and relates to the decision-making factors prevalent at the time of the aid beneficiary’s decision regarding the investment. While, in certain cases, State aid allowing only a partial coverage of the NPV gap may be found to provide a sufficient incentive in combination with other, qualitative factors, the allegedly cost-centred nature of the selection process contradicts Hungary’s argument in this regard.
(181) Finally, Hungary and GKN Automotive submit that the fact that Türkiye has been considered and/or selected by several other investors for their investments confirms, in principle, its credibility as potential location. The Commission considers that the perception of other enterprises is not relevant in this context given that paragraph 68 RAG 2014 and paragraph 66 RAG 2022 indicate that a counterfactual scenario is credible if it is genuine and relates to the decision-making factors prevalent at the time of the aid beneficiary’s decision regarding the investment.
(182) The Commission finds that the comments and evidence provided by the interested parties did not allay the Commission’s serious doubts as to whether Türkiye was a genuine counterfactual location where the beneficiary would have invested in the absence of aid in Hungary.
(183) On the basis of its conclusion at recital (171) and its assessment at recitals (172) to (182), the Commission finds that Hungary failed to demonstrate that the substantive incentive effect of the aid in the context of a scenario 2 situation as notified by Hungary. As neither Hungary nor the other interested parties invoked a scenario 1 situation during either the preliminary examination or the formal investigation, it was not for the Commission to assess the incentive effect of the aid in the context of a scenario 1 situation(51).
(184) Since the evidence collected in the course of the preliminary examination and the formal investigation does not allay the Commission’s serious doubts concerning the substantive incentive effect of the aid, the Commission cannot conclude that the aid would be compatible with the internal market. As the presence of substantive incentive effect has not been demonstrated and this finding is, on its own, sufficient to exclude the possibility of finding the measure compatible with the internal market, it is unnecessary to determine whether the measure meets the other eligibility and compatibility criteria set out in the RAG 2014 and in the RAG 2022.
(185) The Commission concludes that the substantive incentive effect of the measure in favour of GKN Automotive Hungary Kft. (previously Rubin NewCo 2021 Kft.) set out in the RAG 2014 and in the RAG 2022 has not been demonstrated.
(186) This measure may not, therefore, be considered to be compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU,
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1), point (a), thereof,
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to these provisions (1) and having regard to their comments,
Whereas:
1. PROCEDURE
(1) On 11 June 2021, Hungary pre-notified to the Commission its intention to grant regional investment aid (the ‘measure’) in favour of Rubin NewCo 2021 Kft. (‘Rubin’) (2) for the setting-up of a new establishment for production of automotive components in Miskolc, Hungary (the ‘Investment Project’).
(2) On 30 June 2021, a virtual meeting took place between the Commission services, the Hungarian authorities and representatives of GKN Automotive Limited (‘GKN Automotive’, recital (15)).
(3) On 23 July 2021, the Commission requested supplementary information, which Hungary submitted on 27 August 2021.
(4) On 21 September 2021, a second virtual meeting took place between the Commission services, the Hungarian authorities and representatives of GKN Automotive.
(5) On 30 September 2021, the Commission requested supplementary information, which Hungary submitted on 2 December 2021, together with its formal notification of the measure.
(6) On 1 February 2022, the Commission requested further information, which Hungary provided on 29 March, 11 April and 4 May 2022. The Commission requested additional information on 13 May and 15 July 2022 and Hungary replied, respectively, on 17 May and 23 August 2022.
(7) By letter of 23 August 2022, Hungary exceptionally agreed to waive its right deriving from Article 342 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation No 1/1958 (3), and agreed to have this decision adopted and notified in the English language.
(8) By letter dated 27 October 2022, the Commission informed Hungary that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of the measure (the ‘Opening Decision’). On 14 February 2023, Hungary sent its comments on the Opening Decision to the Commission.
(9) The Opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 22 September 2023 (4). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments within one month.
(10) On 3 and 16 October 2023, the Commission received comments from, respectively, Melrose Industries PLC (‘Melrose’) and GKN Automotive. On 24 November 2023, the Commission submitted those comments to Hungary, which replied by letter dated 21 December 2023.
(11) On 8 March 2024, Hungary submitted an overview table listing the doubts that had been raised in the Opening Decision and the corresponding evidence that Hungary considered it had provided to dispel such doubts.
(12) On 16 April 2024, a meeting took place between the Commission services, Hungary and GKN Automotive. On the same day and in view of the meeting with the Commission services, Hungary supplemented its comments of 14 February 2023 with new documents. On 17 April 2024, Hungary re-submitted those documents together with some additional documents and a memorandum summarising the discussion with the Commission services of 16 April 2024 and providing further comments on the issues discussed and on the new evidence submitted.
(13) On 25 April 2024, as a further follow-up to the meeting of 16 April 2024, Hungary submitted another memorandum further commenting on some of the Commission’s doubts.
2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
2.1. Objective of the measure
(14) Through the measure, the Hungarian authorities intend to promote regional development by providing regional investment aid for the setting-up of a new establishment for the production of automotive components (sideshafts, propshafts and sub-components such as joints). The Investment Project is located in the Felsőzsolca industrial zone in Miskolc, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (NUTS 3 code HU311), in the region of Northern Hungary (NUTS 2 code HU31), an area eligible for regional aid under Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU based on the Hungarian regional aid maps for both the period from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2021 (‘regional aid map 2014’) (5) and the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2027 (‘regional aid map 2022’) (6).
2.2. The beneficiary
(15) The recipient of the aid is Rubin, a legal entity that at the time of its establishment (January 2021), was fully owned by Eachairn Aerospace Holdings Limited, a member of UK-based Melrose group (7). On 31 August 2022, 100 % of the ownership of Rubin was transferred, within the Melrose group, to GKN Industries Limited (8). GKN Industries Limited controls GKN Automotive, the entity which holds investments in GKN Automotive entities, performs some head office functions and employs part of GKN Automotive’s senior management and functional leadership team (9). On 20 April 2023, Melrose demerged its GKN Automotive business (10), including GKN Industries Limited, GKN Automotive and Rubin, to form part of a new independent group of companies, the ultimate parent company of which is the UK-based Dowlais Group plc. The beneficiary of the aid does not meet the criteria to qualify as a small or a medium-sized enterprise (11) and should thus be considered as a large enterprise.
(16) The Hungarian authorities confirmed that neither Rubin nor the Melrose Group is an undertaking in difficulty as defined in the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (12). The Hungarian authorities have not informed the Commission of any changes in this respect that would have been caused by the change in ownership of Rubin.
2.3. The Investment Project
2.3.1. General description
(17) According to the Hungarian authorities, the Investment Project is part of GKN Automotive’s long-term restructuring plan defined in 2019 (the ‘Strategy’). The Strategy aims at safeguarding GKN Automotive’s competitiveness in an increasingly competitive market environment by consolidating its inefficient and scattered European production footprint and shifting its production capacity towards more cost-effective locations. GKN Automotive’s manufacturing operations in Europe are spread across more than ten sites, the majority of which are in Western Europe, in locations with high production costs. Furthermore, those sites are largely fragmented and supply each other with intermediate products thereby resulting in inefficiencies through increased transport and stock holding costs.
(18) The Strategy is structured into multiple phases (‘Waves one to six’). The first and the third waves– which involve the [transfer of business] (*1) of certain sites – are the only waves in the process of being implemented. As explained at recitals 40 to 42 of the Opening Decision, Wave two concerned the setting-up of a new production facility for products different to those under the Investment Project and its implementation has been suspended, and Waves four, five and six did not advance further than the conceptual stage of the Strategy with no further steps towards implementation taken.
(19) Wave one, which sought to balance GKN Automotive’s capacity with expected demand, consisted in closing certain sites and transferring their manufacturing operations to existing European sites with spare capacity.
(20) Wave three, as initially planned in the Strategy (November 2019) provided for the [transfer of business] of two European sites and the transfer of their capacity to two integrated sites to be established in two countries that were more cost-effective. Those new production sites would also cover production capacity from other existing production sites to be [transferred] under the following waves. This wave was amended in July 2020 (‘New wave three’). Under New wave three, the relevant production would be integrated into only one integrated site.
(21) The Hungarian authorities explained that the decision to pursue a certain wave within the Strategy (for example, a decision on the [transfer] and/or transfers of production capacity and on the setting-up of new sites, where needed) should be considered as having been taken only once a project is subject to a more detailed feasibility analysis (bottom-up) and a business case is prepared for approval of the relevant funding release.
(22) The Investment Project, which implements New wave three, concerns the setting-up of a production facility for automotive components that will integrate the capacity, without increasing it, of two existing GKN Automotive production facilities in Europe into a new integrated plant in Hungary. Hungary explained that the Investment Project is not planned to accommodate further transfers under the scope of waves two and four to six of the Strategy (recitals 41 and 42 of the Opening Decision).
(23) The Investment Project will have a production capacity of around [5.5 – 7.5] million units of sideshafts and [0.5 – 2.5] million units of propshafts. In addition, it will produce joints and other components (capacity of [17.5 – 21] million units) to be assembled on site into sideshafts and propshafts, and also supply other GKN Automotive assembly sites.
(24) The Investment Project is expected to create approximately 1 500 new direct jobs in Hungary.
(25) According to the Hungarian authorities, the beneficiary submitted its aid applications on 8 April 2021 (for the cash grant) and on 31 March 2021 (for the tax benefit). Those applications were (conditionally) approved on, respectively, 22 December 2021 for the cash grant (recital (29)), and on 12 December 2021 for the tax benefit (recital (31)). The works on the Investment Project then started, within the meaning of paragraph (20)(v) of the Regional Aid Guidelines 2014-2020 (13) (‘RAG 2014’) (14) and of paragraph 19(29) of the Regional Aid Guidelines applicable as from 1 January 2022 (15) (‘RAG 2022’) on 28 April 2022. Finally, production in the facility started in the last quarter of 2023, with full production capacity planned to be reached in 2026.
2.3.2. Eligible investment costs
(26) The eligible investment costs amount to HUF 51 919,55 million (EUR (16) 142.74 million) in nominal value and HUF 50 112,01 million (EUR 137.77 million) in discounted value (17).
(27) Hungary confirmed that the assets to be acquired under the Investment Project are new. Hungary also confirmed that the costs of intangible assets included under the eligible investment costs meet the conditions set out in paragraphs 100 to 102 of the RAG 2014, which are fully reflected in Article 18(5) of Government Decree No 210/2014 (VIII.27.) ‘on the earmarked scheme for investment promotion’ (recital (29)), which provides that, in order to be eligible for the calculation of the investment costs, intangible assets: (a) must be used exclusively by the investor in the establishment receiving the aid; (b) must be depreciated; (c) must be purchased under market conditions from third parties unrelated to the buyer; (d) must be included in the assets of the undertaking receiving the aid and must remain associated with the project for which the aid is granted for at least five years (three years for small and medium-sized enterprises); furthermore (e) for large enterprises, costs of intangible assets are eligible only up to a limit of 50 % of the total eligible costs for the project. Similar provisions are also included in the cash grant incentive agreement.
2.4. Form of aid, granting authority and national legal bases
(28) The measure includes two different aid instruments: a cash grant and a tax benefit, financed by the general State budget.
2.4.1. The cash grant
(29) The cash grant is provided based on Government decree No 210/2014 (VIII.27.) ‘on the earmarked scheme for investment promotion’, a regional aid scheme (18) implemented under Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (‘GBER’) (19), allowing aid for initial investments in a variety of economic sectors. The cash grant constitutes an individually notifiable case of application of that aid scheme, since it exceeds the notification threshold laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER (recital (110)). The cash grant incentive agreement (the ‘Incentive Agreement’) was signed on 22 December 2021 between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (aid grantor) and Rubin and is conditional upon the Commission’s approval of the aid.
2.4.2. The tax benefit
(30) The tax benefit, by the Ministry of Finance (aid grantor) is based on Act LXXXI of 1996 ‘on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax’ (20) and Government Decree No 165/2014 ‘on Development Tax Incentive (VII.17.)’ (21), an aid scheme (22) implemented under the GBER, allowing aid in the form of tax benefits for certain investments. The tax benefit constitutes an individually notifiable case of application of that aid scheme since the total aid amount (cash grant and tax benefit) exceeds the notification threshold laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER (recital (110)). The annual amount of the tax benefit to be utilised may not exceed 80 % of the annual payable corporate tax of the beneficiary. The available tax benefit may be utilised in thirteen consecutive fiscal years at most, but no later than in the sixteenth fiscal year (tax year) after the fiscal year when the application is submitted.
(31) Hungary considers that it awarded the tax benefit on 12 December 2021, which is the date on which the Government adopted a decision (23) according to which it ‘allow(s) the Company to benefit from the development tax advantage for its investment…’. That decision refers to a subsequent act setting specific conditions for the granting: ‘The development tax benefit shall be granted in accordance with the conditions laid down in the decision of the Government to be published on the basis of the decision of the European Commission’.
2.5. Aid amount, aid intensity and cumulation with other investment aid
(32) The total notified aid amounts to HUF 15 917,4 million (EUR 43.76 million) in discounted value. The cash grant has an overall nominal value of HUF 16 280,56 million (EUR 44.76 million) and a discounted value of HUF 15 644,30 million (EUR 43.01 million). The projected amount of the tax benefit is HUF 273.10 million (EUR 0.75 million) in discounted value.
(33) The Hungarian authorities calculated the maximum aid amount and the maximum aid intensity for the Investment Project by applying the scaling-down mechanism (24) to the total eligible investment costs in discounted value and considering the regional aid ceiling of 50 % set by the regional aid map 2014, which it considered as the only regional aid map applicable to both components of the aid (recital (91)) (25). Based on that calculation, the maximum aid amount could not exceed HUF 15 976 million (EUR 43.9 million) in discounted value i.e. the maximum aid intensity allowed for the Investment Project was considered to be 31.88 %. The notified aid amount, as indicated at recital (32), is below that maximum, and corresponds to an aid intensity of 31.76 %.
(34) In light of the provisions of the Incentive Agreement, neither the maximum aid amount (recital (33)), nor the maximum aid intensity (recital (33)) would be exceeded if, for instance, the amount of eligible expenditures deviates from the estimated amount. This is because, according to the Incentive Agreement, (i) even if the actual investment costs of the investment increase compared to the eligible costs set out in the Incentive Agreement, the beneficiary will only be entitled to the cash grant maximum aid amount specified in the agreement; (ii) it is the Commission’s decision that determines the aid intensity of the total State aid that may be granted to the investment (including the tax benefit); and (iii) no amendment affecting the essential content of the Commission decision is possible under the Incentive Agreement without a prior notification to the Commission.
(35) The Hungarian authorities confirmed that the measure cannot be cumulated with other State aid or de minimis aid covering the same eligible costs.
2.6. Closure of other plants in the EEA and possible relocation
(36) The Hungarian authorities explained that within the waves under implementation, mentioned at recital (18), GKN Automotive had already closed several sites and had concrete plans to [transfer the business of] two further sites in […] Europe, after the production capacity of those sites had been transferred to the new Hungarian plant.
2.7. Maintenance of the assisted activity
(37) Section 14(1)(d) of Government Decree No 210/2014 and Section 4(3) of Government Decree No 165/2014 provide that the cash grant and the tax benefit can only be applied and maintained if the investment is maintained in the area concerned for at least five years after its completion. The Incentive Agreement also includes an equivalent obligation on the beneficiary until the end of the monitoring period, which is set at five financial years after 31 December 2026, the deadline for the completion of the investment (26).
2.8. Own contribution
(38) Hungary confirmed that the beneficiary would provide a financial contribution of at least 25 % of the eligible costs through its own resources or by external financing, in a form that is free of any public financial support. This results from the Hungarian legislation applicable to the measure, namely Section 4(7) of Government Decree No 165/2014 (VII. 17.) and Section 14(1)(e) of Government Decree No 210/2014, as well as from the Incentive Agreement.
2.9. Grounds for initiating the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU
(39) The Commission assessed the compatibility of the aid with Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU, as interpreted by the RAG 2014 and the RAG 2022. The application of the two RAGs is related to the different granting dates of the cash grant and the tax benefit. The cash grant was granted before 31 December 2021, and therefore falls within the scope of RAG 2014. For the tax benefit, the Commission, at recital 111 of the Opening Decision, preliminarily considered that the tax benefit, had to be assessed based on RAG 2022. This was because the Government decision of 12 December 2021 presented by Hungary as the tax benefit granting act, could not qualify as such because it does not identify the relevant aid and refers to a further granting decision to be issued following the Commission’s decision on the aid. Therefore, the Commission preliminary considered that the aid would be granted after 31 December 2021.
(40) According to section 3.5 of the RAG 2014 and section 5.2 of the RAG 2022, regional aid can only be found compatible with the internal market if it has an incentive effect. An incentive effect is present when the aid changes the behaviour of an undertaking in a way that it carries out additional activity contributing to the development of an area that it would not have carried out, or would only have done in a limited or different manner (i.e., scenario 1 situation, investment decision), or in another location (i.e., scenario 2 situation, location decision), if the aid was not granted (Opening Decision, recital 119).
(41) In order to demonstrate the existence of a substantive incentive effect, the Hungarian authorities invoke a scenario 2 situation (location decision) (Opening Decision, recital 32) and claim that, without the aid, the investment would have taken place in Türkiye (Eskişehir) because it would have been more profitable to invest in that location as compared to the Hungarian location.
2.9.1. Doubts on incentive effect
(42) The Commission expressed the preliminary view that, following GKN Automotive’s initial country assessment in November 2019, where seven countries-of-interest (27) had been identified and compared, with Poland, Hungary and Slovakia at the top of the list (recital 43 of the Opening Decision) and a 1-year site selection analysis in these three ‘shortlisted’ countries (Section 2.13.2.2. of the Opening Decision), Melrose decided to invest in Hungary on 9 December 2020 through the approval of the capital expenditure request (‘CER’) for the Investment Project. The CER reads: ‘the target of this project is to generate value by consolidating the current footprint in … into a new site located in Hungary.’ The financial summary on that same document concluded on a payback period of [5.4 – 7] years without any consideration of any aid.
(43) According to Hungary, the decision on the location for the investment was adopted only on 9 December 2021 by GKN Automotive and relied on State aid from Hungary to locate the Investment Project in that Member State rather than in an alternative location in Türkiye. More specifically, according to Hungary, Melrose’s approval of the CER on 9 December 2020 only constituted a preliminary securing of the project funding, considering the location of that investment in Hungary as a working hypothesis, and did not constitute a decision on the investment location, but left the door open to a further site selection decision by the GKN Automotive Executive Team (‘GKN Automotive ET’), that latter team being the sole decision-making body for the site selection workflow. Hungary had also submitted that, before the approval of the CER, the business case review for the Investment Project was carried out as part of the annual budget review meeting between GKN Automotive and Melrose on 12 November 2020. In that meeting Melrose had requested that the financial assumptions for the Investment Project in Hungary be improved to reduce the [5.4 – 7]-year payback period of the project to below [4.5 – 5.4] years, which Hungary had submitted is a decisive threshold for Melrose’s investment policy. On that basis, as of December 2020, GKN Automotive explored the possibility to carry out the investment in Türkiye. In January 2021, GKN Automotive took a preliminary location decision in favour of Hungary, conditional upon receiving the full amount of incentives in Hungary, and in December 2021 it adopted a final location decision in favour of Hungary, finding that Hungary was ‘still considered the preferred option concerning non-financial indicators, especially considering the current political and economic volatility in Turkey’ and that the Hungarian incentives that were considered ‘likely to be approved’, ‘will largely offset [the] financial advantage of Turkey […] over Hungary and will enable the project to meet the target payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years ([5.5 – 7.1] years w/o incentives)’. Following the final decision of 9 December 2021, GKN Automotive discontinued the preparatory activities in Türkiye and purchased a plot of land in Hungary for the purposes of the Investment Project (recitals 76 and 80 of the Opening Decision).
(44) The Commission questioned whether GKN Automotive had, in its attempt to reach the financial target imposed by Melrose (if existent), the mandate and the freedom to change the location as presented in the CER (recital 133 of the Opening Decision). In this context, the Commission also noted, at recital 134 of the Opening Decision, that the language of the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, which identify the approval of the land selection by Melrose as one of the next steps (recital 50 of the Opening Decision), seemed to point to Melrose as the decision-making body with respect to site selection for the Investment Project. It also appeared that Melrose’s approval was required for the aid application documents (recital 68 of the Opening Decision). In the presentations for the ‘Land Selection Review’ meeting of 20 January 2021 and the ‘Land Selection Decision’ meeting of 29 January 2021 (recitals 67 and 68 of the Opening Decision), there was also reference to an alignment of the final decision with Melrose and Hungary explained that once the GKN Automotive ET took the location decision in December 2021, it communicated it to the Melrose leadership and that the Melrose leadership ‘did not raise objections’(recital 79 of the Opening Decision).
(45) The Commission expressed the preliminary view that, if GKN Automotive had to work within the scope of the approved project description, it could be that Türkiye was only established as a counterfactual location for the purposes of enabling GKN Automotive to demonstrate the requisite incentive effect and hence to receive regional aid for the investment, rather than as a genuine counterfactual of where the Investment Project would take place in the absence of aid. The Commission also noted that the beneficiary was fully aware that, in the context of the relocation, to qualify for regional aid, it needed to present a scenario 2 counterfactual for the Investment Project, as it had been in contact with the Hungarian authorities responsible for State aid matters (recital 133 of the Opening Decision). Indeed, following some preliminary discussions between GKN Automotive and the Hungarian authorities on the incentives available for the Investment Project (recital 51 of the Opening Decision), on 26 August 2020, the Hungarian Promotion Agency (‘HIPA’) had warned GKN Automotive, by e-mail, that to receive the Commission’s approval on the relevant State aid ‘we would have to prove that there is no casual (28) relation between the potential state aid and the closure of an activity in an EEA country. Considering all the above, based on our consultation with the Hungarian State Aid Monitoring Office, we do not think that this statement may be underpinned in this case’ (recital 52 of the Opening Decision). On 5 November 2020, HIPA had provided an indicative incentive offer for a cash grant of EUR [9 – 13] million and a tax benefit of EUR [18 – 25] million (which corresponded, altogether, to the applicable regional aid ceiling), which referred to the Investment Project identifying Poland and Slovakia as alternative locations. The same HIPA e-mail transmitting that indicative offer also reads: ‘We are also open to facilitate a joint meeting with the State Aid Monitoring Office, in order to take a closer look on the relocation matters, which might serve as a good guidance during the notification procedure towards the European Commission’ (recital 53 of the Opening Decision).
(46) The Commission harboured serious doubts that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years constituted a determinative factor, prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision on the Investment Project. The Hungarian authorities had not provided any evidence, contemporaneous to the events in question, confirming the relevant payback period, nor any material to substantiate the argument that Melrose had requested that the payback period for the investment in Hungary be improved to reach the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target. The Commission also noted that it would expect to find some reference to such [4.5 – 5.4]-year requirement or to the efforts to reach it in the CER for the Investment Project or in the more detailed description attached to it (i.e. the presentation used at the meeting with Melrose on 12 November 2020) (recital 135 of the Opening Decision). This was also based on the fact that, in the capital expenditure request for another project of much lower cost, submitted by Hungary, the Commission found clear reference to efforts required to reduce the payback period, which in that case was already below [4.5 – 5.4] years. The Opening Decision also refers to the fact that the CER did not refer to Hungary as only being a ‘working hypothesis’ and to the fact that the wording (29) of the 12 November presentation, annexed to the CER, points to a location decision to be taken by Melrose (recital 57 of the Opening Decision). That presentation also includes a clear request to ‘Approve [Investment Project] (30) business case with a payback of [5.4 – 7] years (31), recurring cash savings of GBP [50 – 65]m and total one-off costs of GBP [220 – 400]m’ (of which […] % constitutes severance payments) (recital 54 of the Opening Decision).
(47) The Commission questioned the existence of a strict investment policy requiring a maximum payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years that would have been applicable to the relevant decision-making process also on the basis of the pieces of evidence listed at recital 136 of the Opening Decision (recital (138)).
(48) As to the counterfactual scenario involving a location of the investment in Türkiye, the Commission acknowledged the further documentary evidence as of December 2020 (recital 131 of the Opening Decision) from which it appears that a location in Türkiye, as an investment location, was compared with the selected region in Hungary, in the context of the preliminary location decision in January 2021 and of the final location decision in December 2021. However, for the reasons set out at recital (50), the Commission could not establish that Türkiye was a genuine counterfactual location in which, in the absence of the Hungarian aid, the Investment Project would have taken place.
(49) The Commission noted that it was not clear on what basis in November/December 2020 Türkiye evolved as the only counterfactual location for the Investment Project to be further explored. GKN Automotive had excluded Türkiye as a potential location for setting up new plants (32) in the initial country assessment in November 2019 as it considered that it presented political risks. A presentation dated 13 November 2019 shows that GKN Automotive’s existing site in Eskişehir (Türkiye), was evaluated at an initial stage of the assessment, with a significant expansion ‘potentially attractive because of [the] ultra-low-cost status’. At the same time, it was considered that ‘[the] political stability of [the] country poses a significant risk’, and that ‘OEM investment decisions in Turkey [are] currently in [the] process of reconsideration/cancellation because of country risk’. The suggested future for Eskişehir was ‘No change’. As a consequence, Türkiye was not further considered amongst the countries-of-interest to be scored and compared (recital (42)). One year later, Türkiye reappeared in the process together with Poland, Slovakia, Morocco and Serbia and very quickly evolved as the only alternative to Hungary that was explored, without any evidence of follow-up for any of the other locations. Hungary had explained that due to the comparable cost of the Investment Project between Hungary and either Poland or Slovakia, changing the location to either of those latter countries was not expected to yield significant financial benefits. It also explained that Morocco and Serbia were not considered due to the advantages offered by the already existing local footprint in Türkiye. Since the existing operations in Türkiye are limited in size in comparison to all of GKN Automotive’s other sites, the Commission raised serious doubts as to whether those existing operations could actually represent a decisive factor to opt for Türkiye as the only alternative location to Hungary, with no need to perform any comparison with the other possible best cost locations. The Commission noted in this context that Romania and Bulgaria had also been identified among the countries-of-interest in the initial country assessment (recital (42)) as being very attractive locations in terms of costs. Although those two countries were eventually not shortlisted, it was not clear why they were not reconsidered as ultra-low-cost locations.
(50) Even if Türkiye had been analysed as a genuine alternative between December 2020 and December 2021, it was not clear whether Türkiye presented a real counterfactual which GKN Automotive and/or Melrose, in December 2021, would have selected in the absence of State aid in Hungary. The Commission considered that Hungary did not sufficiently substantiate how the political risks, which had been evaluated as a deterrent factor in 2019 (recital (49)), had changed by December 2020, when Türkiye was re-introduced as an alternative location. Hungary did not provide a detailed risk analysis, report or other document concerning the 2019, 2020 and January 2021 assessments of the political and operational risks in Türkiye, nor did Hungary provide sufficient explanations as to why Melrose and/or GKN Automotive considered the political situation less volatile in December 2020 or January 2021 as compared to 2019 (recitals 143 and 144 of the Opening Decision). Given GKN Automotive’s view on the political and economic volatility in Türkiye at the end of 2021 and the increased perceived risks (33), the Commission raised doubts that Türkiye was a realistic investment option and preliminarily considered that GKN Automotive would have invested in Hungary in any event (recitals 78 and 144 of the Opening Decision). The Commission also questioned the underlying reasoning of the consideration in December 2021 that Hungary was the preferred option since Hungarian incentives ‘will largely offset the financial advantage of the Turkey option’, given that the financial advantage of the location in Türkiye (in terms of NPV) was only partially offset (less than 50 %) by the aid offered by the Hungarian authorities (recital 145 of the Opening Decision).
2.9.2. Doubts on proportionality
(51) The Commission expressed doubts on the proportionality of the aid amount in view of its doubts on incentive effect but also in light of the uncertainties related to the size of the investment.
(52) For the size of the investment, the Commission noted that the projected production volume of the site to be established under the third wave seems to have changed significantly between the initial Wave three and the New wave three whereas the land and building requirements, which are the basis for the capital expenditure considered in the NPV, were not amended. The Commission also noted that the time frame considered for the NPV calculation presents discrepancies with regards to the indicated timing of start of production and of reaching full production capacity, as presented by the Hungarian authorities. In addition, given that (i) the past actual production of the two existing sites to be relocated as a result of the Investment Project appeared to be below the capacity created with the Investment Project and (ii) the forecasted sales quantities of the Investment Project in the years of full production, as shown in the NPV analysis, appeared to be below the capacity created with the Investment Project, the Commission could not confirm that the capital expenditure to set up the Investment Project was realistic. In this context, the Commission could not exclude that the Investment Project was planned to accommodate further transfers under the scope of Waves four to six of the Strategy. However, the Hungarian authorities explained that there are no concrete plans to implement those waves. The Commission also noted that a production facility of lower capacity adjusted to the sales needs would require a lower cost to be considered in the NPV calculation, which could affect the NPV gap between the two locations and might impact the proportionality assessment (recital 165 of the Opening Decision).
2.9.3. Doubts on undue negative effects on competition and trade
(53) In view of its doubts on the incentive effect of the aid and the credibility of the counterfactual, the Commission could not conclude on the lack of potential negative effects of the aid (Section 3.3.6. of the Opening Decision), in particular on whether the aid could have been causal for the relocation (Section 3.3.6.4. of the Opening Decision) and whether the aid would contribute to, or reinforce, the creation of overcapacity in a market in absolute decline and have a manifest negative effect on competition in this respect (Section 3.3.6.2. of the Opening Decision).
3. COMMENTS FROM HUNGARY ON THE OPENING DECISION
3.1. Incentive effect
(54) Hungary submitted a written statement signed on 11 April 2024 by GKN Automotive’s current Chief Executive Officer (‘CEO’), who at the time of the decision-making for the Investment Project was the President of the Driveline Business Unit and member of the GKN Automotive ET. Hungary submits that due to the spin-off from Melrose Group, GKN Automotive no longer has access to documents of its former parent company which could further substantiate the statements made during the preliminary and formal investigation and therefore asked the Commission to take this signed statement into account. Hungary submits that with this signed statement the GKN Automotive’s former President of the Driveline Business Unit and member of the GKN Automotive ET provides a recollection of the decision-making process concerning the location of the Investment Project, which supports the arguments already submitted by Hungary in the course of the preliminary and formal investigation. Specifically, Hungary refers to the following elements in the statement: (i) ‘Neither Melrose, nor GKN Automotive, took the final location decision in the meeting’ on 12 November 2020 and that it was his ‘clear understanding that GKN Automotive had the freedom in its attempt to reach the financial target imposed by Melrose to change the location as presented in the Capital Expenditure Request’; (ii) GKN Automotive ‘would have selected Turkey, even in light of the political and operational risks the GKN Automotive ET had identified for Turkey’‘in case the GKN Automotive ET would have considered there to be a material risk to the approval of the aid’.
3.1.1. Scope of GKN Automotive’s mandate
(55) Hungary submits that Melrose is a financial investor and as such puts a higher emphasis on financial impacts and generally considers ‘much shorter time frames for payback periods’ for the release of funds than conventional manufacturing companies which consider, for example, long-term strategies when taking investment decisions and, thus, are willing to accept longer payback periods. Hungary considers that decision-making processes of conventional manufacturing companies, as the Commission is used to assessing in its compatibility analysis of other notified cases, cannot be compared to decision-making processes of financial investors.
(56) Hungary reiterates that Melrose was not responsible for the location decision since it does not engage directly in the operational decision-making of its portfolio companies. Melrose’s role in the decision-making process is limited to giving approval on issues of ‘high financial importance’. According to Hungary, Melrose empowers the management teams of the portfolio companies through the use of a Delegation of Authority Policy, for example, to take business decisions. In this context, Hungary submitted the GKN Delegation of Authority Policy (‘DoA’), a document that sets out the approval limits for matters requiring authorisation at all levels of management, up to and including Melrose and that, according to Hungary, (i) demonstrates that the powers of Melrose are predominantly concentrated on financial issues, such as capital expenditure above a certain value, funding and security while matters such as human resources, legal, purchasing and supplier contracts, advisors, consultants and sales agents, customer pricing and contracts are decided primarily within GKN Automotive, with the involvement of Melrose only required when the subject matter is of high financial importance; and (ii) does not relate to operational decisions such as market penetration or the specifics of manufacturing footprint changes (including decisions on [transfer of business] and new site establishments).
(57) Hungary submits that Melrose reviews significant investment decisions to ensure they are adequate and are meeting expected financial performance indicators such as payback periods. There is no formal rule setting forth thresholds in terms of payback period; rather, such thresholds are based on common practice. Melrose considers that, in its role as a financial investor, its main objective is to maximise shareholder value by managing capital allocation tightly, taking a firm view regarding the financial profitability of opportunities to pursue or reject. Opportunities tend to be ranked based on the length of their payback period. To document the internal practice of Melrose regarding the acceptable payback period of projects, Hungary refers to an email of Melrose of 6 August 2021, submitted in the context of the Commission’s preliminary examination of the aid as part of a response to a request for information by the Commission (recital (3)), indicating that ‘… for routine capital equipment, we tend to look at investments with a payback under [2.1 – 2.9] years. For larger purchases we may consider something a little longer but we would not consider anything with a payback in excess of [4.5 – 5.4] years – this is a red line for us and simply wouldn’t be attractive given the constraints on […]. Whilst nothing is documented, we have a strong track record of complying with this general policy and I certainly cannot recall any instances where a payback longer than [4.5 – 5.4] years has been approved’.
(58) The decision-making bodies of Melrose are the Melrose Board of Directors, the highest legal decision-making body, responsible for the strategic management of Melrose and all its subsidiaries, and Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management, the body responsible for day-to-day management of Melrose and for financial oversight of its subsidiaries, such as approval of strategy, budgets, business plans, significant investments and other material decisions. In this context, Hungary clarifies that the entity within Melrose that had the competence to approve the budget of the Investment Project was Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management.
(59) Hungary maintains that in the business case presented to Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management on 12 November 2020, the location of the Investment Project in Hungary was used as a working hypothesis because of the country’s favourable rating in the location selection scorecard on country level (slightly behind Poland) and regional level (better than any other European region, including those in Poland). Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management recognised the strategic necessity for GKN Automotive to consolidate its European footprint to secure the long-term competitiveness, and recognised the need for an initial approval of the funds to allow the GKN Automotive ET to progress with the project. Therefore, it gave its initial approval for the funding. As Hungary submits, at the same time, Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management challenged the payback period of [5.4 – 7] years exceeding the [4.5 – 5.4]-year threshold and asked the GKN Automotive ET to increase the financial attractiveness of the business case to comply with it. In this context, as Hungary submits, GKN Automotive was forced to reconsider the project scope, and, therefore, the location, as a way to address Melrose’s request. On this basis, the GKN Automotive ET tasked the Site selection project team (34) to elaborate the scenario of pursuing the Investment Project in Türkiye.
(60) Hungary explains that there are no meeting minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020. Hungary submits a written statement regarding that meeting, which was prepared in January 2023, and signed on 10 February 2023 by the Melrose and GKN Automotive participants to that meeting, in order to clarify the nature of the discussion and decisions taken during the part of the meeting which related to the [Investment Project] Business Case Review (‘retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020’). According to this statement, during that meeting, ‘[a member of Melrose] raises concerns about the financial viability of the business case on the basis that the payback period exceeded [4.5 – 5.4] years. He elaborated that a long payback period would mean Melrose Industries may not see a full return on their cash investment on the project during their period of ownership. Nevertheless, all participants of the meeting agreed on the strategic necessity of the project to future proof the GKN Driveline business, notwithstanding that the payback was less attractive than would ordinarily be considered acceptable. Following discussion, the Melrose Industries representatives signified their approval of the project business case, thereby permitting the project to proceed on the basis of the project budget. However, they tasked the GKN Automotive team to revisit the project assumptions to identify ways to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years by increasing value and/or reducing cost’.
(61) Hungary submitted an email of 9 December 2020 from Melrose to GKN Automotive attaching the signed CER, which reads: ‘please note the following comments: As discussed in the budget review, we are in agreement with the concept/big picture. Therefore, we have signed the form. However, this is not a blanket approval to spend £[220 – 400]m. We expect to be updated as each element progresses and as the business case becomes clearer, for example £[…]m for […] will almost certainly not be the final number etc. So please keep us updated on each element, and break down as appropriate – perhaps separately for each stage you have identified’. Hungary submits that this email clearly stipulated conditions to the approval of the business case by Melrose. Melrose did not provide ‘a blanket approval to spend £[220 – 400]m’ and Melrose approved the request as they were ‘in agreement with the concept/big picture’ but expected ‘to be updated as each element progresses and as the business case becomes clearer’.
(62) Hungary agrees with the Commission’s observation at recital 128 of the Opening Decision that the language of the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 could suggest that Melrose was the decision-making body with respect to site selection for the Investment Project. However, in the context of the explanations provided on the involvement of Melrose in the decision-making of its portfolio companies (recital (56)), Hungary submits that all references to the land selection approval by Melrose in the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 are only to be considered within the broader context of the overall business case review and should be read as ‘document for Melrose approval of the business case with Hungary as a working hypothesis for the investment location’. Those documents only reflect the discussions within the GKN Automotive ET. It was the GKN Automotive ET that proposed the option to pursue the Investment Project in Hungary as part of the overall business case which was presented to Melrose on 12 November 2020. The presentation for that meeting documents the information presented to Melrose on that date, showing that GKN Automotive ET requested from its shareholder a decision to ‘Approve [Investment Project] business case with a payback of [5.4 – 7] years…’. Hungary explains that the GKN Automotive ET did not ask to approve Hungary as an investment location.
(63) Hungary explains that GKN Automotive reached out to a consultancy firm to solicit external support on location and incentives-related services. The Hungarian authorities submitted a service request sent to the consultancy firm on 27 November 2020, that in their view, clearly shows that it was the understanding of the Site selection project team at the time that ‘no definite decisions for the project or a site have been made’. Hungary submits that this service request also shows that no location decision had been taken, which is further supported by a meeting set up on 16 November 2020 – two working days after Melrose had challenged the business case for the Investment Project – in which the Site selection project team discussed how to improve the financial viability of the project, including investigation of potential alternative locations (recital 59 of the Opening Decision).
(64) Hungary also commented on the Commission’s observation, at recital 134 of the Opening Decision, that it appears that the aid application documents submitted to the Hungarian authorities were also subject to Melrose’s approval. Hungary submits that indeed such a reference appears in the presentation for the Land Selection Decision meeting of 29 January 2021. However, this concerned a proposal of the Site selection project team to the GKN Automotive ET, with which the Site selection project team ‘wanted to test Melrose’s sensitivity to the involvement of any political stakeholder’. The Site selection project team was seeking guidance from GKN Automotive ET whether to share the aid application documents with Melrose. Hungary submits that that proposal did not convert into a task, as presented in the meeting minutes, where the review of aid application documents by Melrose was not mentioned.
(65) Hungary also submits that the formulations from presentations and meeting minutes related to GKN Automotive ET meetings demonstrate the level of involvement of Melrose in the project and reiterates its position that Melrose did not decide on the location. For instance, in the meeting on 29 January 2021, the GKN Automotive ET intends to ‘align final decision and outcome of business case challenge with Melrose’. This means that the final location decision taken by the GKN Automotive ET should be communicated to Melrose as part of the business case review. In the meeting minutes, which contain conclusions drawn in the meeting, Melrose is not mentioned in any action point at all. The minutes from the meeting on 9 December 2021, during which, according to Hungary, the final location decision was taken, mention that the GKN Automotive ET have to ‘inform Melrose about conclusion about final location decision’. Hungary submits that this clearly means that the decision was taken within and by the GKN Automotive ET and without any approval by Melrose.
(66) Finally, Hungary submits that if Melrose were the ultimate decision-maker, then it would have stopped GKN Automotive from investigating a potential alternative location for the Investment Project in Türkiye, not to waste resources. In fact, despite being kept informed by the GKN Automotive CEO and the GKN Automotive ET, Melrose did not interfere to stop the investigation of the alternative location. This suggest that should the GKN Automotive ET have concluded that Türkiye was the preferred option, Melrose would have been open to revisit the decision.
3.1.2. Payback period expected by Melrose
(67) Hungary submits that the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 and the email of Melrose of 6 August 2021 constitute contemporaneous evidence of the financial target of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years of payback that the Investment Project had to fulfil at the time of the investment and location decision.
(68) Regarding the Commission’s preliminary view that ‘the payback is not the only consideration for decision-making and was not necessarily to be evaluated wave per wave’ at recital 136, point (a) of the Opening Decision, Hungary submits that all projects resulting from the Strategy were evaluated individually. Whilst there is some element of the total financial benefit of the Strategy that would only be unlocked if the whole – or at least the largest part – of the Strategy were implemented (e.g., full working capital benefit), the waves could be and were evaluated separately for implementation. The Strategy in six waves provides the basis for a more detailed feasibility assessment and eventual setup and approval of separate projects to be implemented under the waves. As an example, Hungary referred to the project ‘[investment project A]’, which was already approved in April 2019 with a payback period calculation specific to that project. Accordingly, all other projects resulting from the Strategy were evaluated individually. Hungary also submits that for each project within the waves, the payback period per project was decisive. Hungary provided, in this context, a summary table (35) listing four projects, three of which were part of Wave one of the Strategy and one concerned another project (36). Those projects have payback periods of respectively of [3.1 – 4.2], [3.5 – 4.4], [2.2 – 2.9] and [2.5 – 3.1] years, which, according to Hungary, shows that the [5.4 – 7]-year payback period of the Investment Project is ‘worse than any other European project in the company’s recent portfolio of projects’.
(69) Hungary also commented on the statements of the Commission at recital 136, point (b) of the Opening Decision that for the several updates of the business case for New wave three, the payback period always exceeded [4.5 – 5.4] years and that, in the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, there was a reference to a target payback period of maximum [5.6 – 7.2] years. Hungary submits that the need to improve the payback period of Wave three (with a payback period of [7.5 – 11] years in the initial bottom-up business case) resulted in a change in the approach (New wave three). After the change of the approach including limiting the number of new sites to one, the project payback period was internally reduced to [a range between 5 – 7] years, which ‘presented only the likely range of the payback period of the business case sensitive to some core assumptions’. Hungary explains that the target of less than [5.6 – 7.2] years as mentioned in the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 is rather ‘GKN project team’s internal task to deliver a project with financials not worse than [5.6 – 7.2] years’ whereas the common financial threshold for projects of similar scope to be approved by Melrose is [4.5 – 5.4] years. Hungary also adds that the GKN Automotive ET was aware of this requirement when formally requesting the CER approval, that meant in this case further revision of the business case. To substantiate the GKN Automotive ET’s awareness, Hungary refers to the table providing the payback period in other GKN Automotive projects mentioned at recital (68).
(70) Regarding the statements of the Commission at recital 136, point (c) of the Opening Decision pointing to the absence of any reaction of the Chief Financial Officer (‘CFO’) to the draft presentation for the 10 November 2020 Melrose business case review, which clearly referred to a [5.4 – 7] years payback period, Hungary explains that the CFO was not expected to comment on such pre-read material, since he had been involved – until that moment – in a series of discussions to prepare that 12 November 2020 meeting, which involved the revision of the payback period. Hungary refers to the latest pre-review of the financials before the 12 November 2020 meeting which took place on 30 October 2020, and provided an invitation to an on-line meeting of 30 October 2020 and a presentation titled ‘Business Case Review: [Investment Project]’. According to Hungary, after the 12 August 2020 meeting, the GKN Automotive ET was not able to reduce the payback period that was, therefore, presented as being [5.5 – 7.5] years at the pre-review meeting of 30 October 2020. Hungary explains that the payback period could be lowered following a discussion with the CFO, who was expecting to push it below [4.5 – 5.4] years. Based on that discussion the Site selection project team worked to make some further improvements on the financials which led the GKN Automotive ET to reduce the payback to [5.4 – 7] years, as it was presented to Melrose on 12 November 2020.
(71) Hungary recalls that the Strategy’s objective was to safeguard GKN Automotive’s competitiveness in an increasingly competitive market environment by consolidating its inefficient and scattered European production footprint and shifting its production capacity to more cost-effective locations. Therefore, ‘GKN Automotive realised that the Company had to proceed with the Investment Project to become competitive in terms of price, to be able to win new businesses on one side and to meet the financial expectations from the shareholder on the other’. Hungary also submits that despite the fact that the payback period was not below [4.5 – 5.4] years, ‘GKN Automotive ET was concerned about the potential negative impact a delay could have on the overall project timeline – and given the project’s important strategic nature, decided to proceed to discuss the business case with Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management on 12 November 2020 even with a payback of [5.4 – 7] years.’. With reference to the 12 November 2020 business case review meeting, Hungary adds that ‘all participants of the meeting agreed on the strategic necessity to implement the project to secure the future of the GKN Driveline business, notwithstanding that the payback was less attractive than would ordinarily be considered acceptable’. Melrose however, challenged the business case and instructed GKN Automotive to seek further financial improvement. As all financial assumptions were already several times reconsidered and improved, the GKN Automotive ET was not able to further reduce the payback without a fundamental change of the core assumptions, i.e., without considering another potential location. Hungary further submits that GKN Automotive ET concluded based on prior internal discussions and regular exchanges with Melrose Executive Directors & Management, to investigate an ultra-low-cost location to see if a financially more attractive business case exists. As a result, the Site selection project team developed the option of investing in Türkiye, as the alternative ultra-low-cost location, in particular the expansion of the existing operation in Eskişehir. According to Hungary, GKN Automotive’s CEO has kept Melrose updated on the further development of this alternative.
(72) Regarding the lack of evidence of a payback period calculation/consideration for the alternative locations (Türkiye, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia or Morocco) which, according to Hungary, were considered before concluding to promote Türkiye as the only alternative location (recital 136, point (d) of the Opening Decision), Hungary submits that looking into the runner up locations from the initial country assessment (Poland and Slovakia) was not expected to yield significant financial benefits due to comparable cost to Hungary and that other ultra-low cost locations without existing GKN operations were considered less realistic and less viable in terms of fast decision-making.
(73) Regarding the introduction of Türkiye without any assessment in terms of payback period (recital 136, point (e) of the Opening Decision), Hungary emphasises the difference between two workstreams, each with their own evaluation methodology: (i) a ‘general funding pre-approval’ (release of funding) for the New wave three of the footprint transformation in November 2020 and (ii) the business case challenge that initiated further location analysis. The first workstream was based on the payback period method and used an ‘assumed location’ to release funding. The second workstream used the NPV method, which seemed to be more appropriate for long-term decision-making, as the ‘NPV comparison allowed a more nuanced understanding of the impact of cash flows expected in both locations. The company was also informed that NPV comparison was the standard approach required in order to demonstrate a funding requirement, relevant to regional aid.’. Hungary explained that Melrose, as a financial investor is looking to invest, recoup and reinvest as fast as they can, and therefore uses the payback period when it takes a decision. Therefore, GKN Automotive was obliged to calculate the payback period to obtain the approval for the financing. At the same time, after having the approval, GKN Automotive, as a conventional manufacturing company that was looking for a more long-term approach to project investment and seeks a better balance of projects and investments so that their mid- and long-term needs are all taken care of, used in January 2021 the NPV methodology ‘to confirm a location assumption for the project, not to make the final location decision’. Hungary also submits that the presentation for the meeting of 29 January 2021 was superseded by the presentation for the meeting of 9 December 2021, the latter featuring a more comprehensive report featuring both payback period and NPV comparison of the final two locations, that was the basis of the final location decision on 9 December 2021, in favour of Hungary assuming the full amount of aid that allowed to meet the payback threshold of [4.5 – 5.4] years and taking into account both financial and non-financial factors. NPV is also commonly used by GKN Automotive in other contexts such as new business acquisition. In this respect, Hungary points out to the Commission that for other large investment projects, where the beneficiaries were conventional manufacturing companies, the decisions were taken on the basis of NPV calculations, not on the basis of payback periods.
(74) Hungary therefore considers that the payback period method appears to be less appropriate for long-term strategic decisions and they believe that the NPV analysis better enabled GKN Automotive’s leadership to understand location specific costs and benefits as well as performance drivers over the whole project lifetime. In their view, it was not necessary and not correct to use the payback period method in the location analysis conducted after Melrose had challenged the business case for the Investment Project.
(75) Regarding the observation of the Commission that the payback period included in the CER of November 2020 did not take account of revenues from sale of land and buildings in the two existing production facilities that were to be relocated to Hungary (recital 136, point (f) of the Opening Decision), Hungary submits that it is common practice within GKN Automotive not to consider those elements in project business cases. As to the CER not taking account of the aid amount of the indicative aid offer, Hungary submits that GKN Automotive acted prudently as at the time of the business case review the aid was not considered certain. Furthermore, as Hungary submits, GKN Automotive was aware that because of its intended relocation from other European sites any aid would require approval by the Commission.
(76) Hungary concludes that the payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years was a decisive criterion with regard to the notified measure. Melrose’s expectation was clearly to improve payback (i.e., stay under the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback threshold). The final location decision to invest in Hungary was taken on 9 December 2021 by the GKN Automotive ET, more than a year after the initial business case had been challenged on 12 November 2020. On 9 December 2021, the Investment Project in Hungary was expected to result in a payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years (below the target of [4.5 – 5.4] years) considering the incentives (and in a payback with [5.5 – 7.1] years without incentives). As the GKN Automotive ET managed to stay under the threshold of [4.5 – 5.4] years payback period fulfilling thereby the shareholder’s request from the business case challenge of 12 November 2020, it did not have to request a further approval from Melrose, and only informed Melrose of the final location.
(77) Finally, Hungary expresses concern with regard to the Commission’s assumptions that a formal investment policy would have needed to be in place for Melrose to be able to challenge the business case for the Investment Project. Even if there was no formal investment policy requiring a payback of below [4.5 – 5.4] years, as the Commission assumes, Melrose as an owner could still have requested GKN Automotive to improve the financial viability of the Investment Project.
3.1.3. The introduction of Türkiye as the only counterfactual
(78) Hungary submits that in order to further reduce the payback period after Melrose had challenged the business case, GKN Automotive had to fundamentally change the core assumptions and thus consider another potential location through investigation of an ultra-low-cost location to see if a more attractive business case existed. In this context, a multi-stage selection process was conducted that involved an analysis of location-specific costs, exclusion of other low-cost countries previously considered (because of costs comparable to Hungary), consideration of ultra-low-cost locations and selection of an ultra-low-cost location in which the Investment Project could realistically be implemented in the time frame required.
(79) Hungary submits that at the time when the Strategy was drawn up, Türkiye had been identified as having the lowest cost/revenue ratio amongst GKN Automotive’s existing sites. In November 2020, when Melrose asked to improve the payback period, Türkiye was considered as a priority option to be explored. Poland and Slovakia, countries previously shortlisted, were not considered as the investments in those locations would involve comparable costs to an investment in Hungary. Other ultra-low-cost options such as Serbia, Morocco, Romania and Bulgaria, which according to Hungary had all to a certain extent been considered at various stages in the location selection process, would have required additional effort extending the lead time for decision-making and ultimately the start of production. At this stage of the project, only an investment in Türkiye, in the region where GKN Automotive had already been operating, was feasible, given the presence of a local team that could meet the expected timeline for the Investment Project. Even though the existing operation in Türkiye was limited in terms of volumes, the site had continuously demonstrated a very good operational performance and was highly cost competitive in comparison to other existing sites of GKN Automotive and could therefore have been a viable nucleus for further expansion of the local footprint. Thus, Türkiye emerged as the most feasible option to consider further at that point of time.
(80) Hungary provided two invitations to online meetings of 19 November 2020 and 4 December 2020 referred to as ‘catch-up call’ between two GKN Automotive individuals involved in the Investment Project and an invitation to an online meeting invitation of 10 December 2020 involving GKN Automotive staff involved in the Investment Project and local staff in Türkiye for a ‘quick [Investment Project] review to agree on the next steps’. Hungary submits that these documents provide further evidence of meetings in November and December 2020 in which the Investment Project was discussed, including the ways of addressing Melrose’s challenge to the business case for the project. Hungary submits that over the course of these meetings, along with meetings for which evidence was already provided during the Commission’s preliminary examination, GKN Automotive concluded that ‘(a) only a lower cost alternative location would enable the level of improvements required to meet the target payback, (b) other locations than Turkey would either not materially change the financial viability, e.g., Poland, Slovakia, and/or would be expected to cause a substantial delay to the investment process in the absence of existing local operations, e.g., Morocco, Serbia.’ Apart from the meeting invitations, no further evidence was provided.
(81) Hungary provided an email dated 8 December 2020 where, as follow-up to the activities in the period 1 to 7 December 2020 indicated at recital 60 of the Opening Decision, GKN local staff in Türkiye presented information on the investment history of GKN Automotive in Türkiye (plant established in 2009 and expanded in 2013), on the current site and on investments made by other companies in the area. Hungary submits that this email further substantiates the early internal discussions on locating the project in Türkiye.
3.1.4. Türkiye as a genuine counterfactual
(82) Regarding the timeline of GKN Automotive’s preparatory activities in Türkiye and the pre-notification discussions with the Commission, Hungary submits that the counterfactual location in Türkiye began being investigated immediately after the request to explore an ultra-low-cost location. Hungary referred to the update of the scorecard in December 2020 (described at recital 63 of the Opening Decision), to the financial analysis of this alternative scenario in the course of January 2021 and to negotiations with the Turkish authorities in January 2021. Given that the award of the aid offered by Hungary was subject to Commission approval, GKN Automotive could not take it for granted. Therefore, Hungary initiated a pre-notification process with the Commission in June 2021 and the GKN Automotive ET continued to develop the alternative scenario of an investment in Türkiye in parallel, to match the level of analysis carried out for other locations, which included further meetings with the Turkish authorities and a site visit by the VP Operations Europe in July 2021 (the local team visited the site at a much earlier stage in the process) as well as further preparatory activities around land purchase, project planning and building design. Hungary submits that, since GKN Automotive had an existing facility in Türkiye, the majority of this work was done by the local team and the arrangement of senior management site visits was only sensible once the case was developed to an appropriate level of maturity, which was the main preoccupation of the Site selection project team from December 2020 to July 2021.
(83) Regarding the timing of the pre-notification of the case to the Commission, as referred to at recital 140 of the Opening Decision, Hungary submits that the fact that the beneficiary pre-notified the project in Hungary already in spring 2021 does not imply a location decision. Hungary and the beneficiary approached the Commission as early as possible in view of the complexity of the case, which includes a relocation element, on which there was no existing case-law. The beneficiary considered a swift pre-notification to better understand the likelihood of obtaining the aid. Hungary referred to the meeting minutes of the Land Selection Decision meeting of 29 January 2021 which indicated that Miskolc was confirmed as the preferred location of the Investment Project on the assumption that the project would be granted the full amount of incentives. Hungary also referred to the presentation that the Site selection project team prepared for the meeting of 9 December 2021 where the final location decision was taken. That presentation states: ‘Following the further pursuit of national application and EU approval processes to obtain incentive packages, incentives in Hungary are now considered more likely than in January. Incentives will largely offset financial advantage of Turkey option over Hungary and will enable the project to meet the target payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years ([5.5 – 7.1] years w/o incentives)’.
(84) Regarding the perceived political and operational risks of Türkiye, Hungary submits that the political risks in Türkiye had never been considered as deterrent as the beneficiary already has successful operations in Türkiye. In November 2019, the existing GKN Automotive site in Türkiye was evaluated within the Strategy showing very plausible economic results however GKN Automotive adopted a ‘wait and see’ stance potentially considering an expansion of the site, due to perceived risks and other operational factors and based on the fact that the cost was not the important decision factor before the business case challenge by Melrose in November 2020. It was only then that the cost factor/payback period was prioritised over any other considerations. When Türkiye was added to the scorecard assessment in December 2020, it scored the lowest on political and economic risk dimensions, which meant that the internal perception of Türkiye did not materially change and the risks were still considered high in comparison to the other locations considered. However, given the positive experiences from the current operations in Türkiye and the prioritisation of the financial impact to achieve the payback target, the Site selection project team decided that the perceived risk levels were tolerable to pursue the scenario of carrying out the investment in Türkiye, which was highly attractive from a financial perspective. Hungary submits that the heightened risk profile of Türkiye was very much considered in the final location decision in December 2021 and ‘Considering the aid, Hungary was meeting the payback target of Melrose, the purely financially driven shareholder, but was considered by the company’s strategically oriented management favourable from non-financial criteria – including the risk profile – such that these were considered to offset the remaining financial advantage of Turkey’. If GKN Automotive did not consider Türkiye as a viable location, it would not have its presence there in the first place.
(85) Finally, Hungary submits that, in 2020 and 2021, when GKN Automotive was considering Türkiye as an alternative location, other investors (OEMs suppliers or vehicle manufacturers) were considering Türkiye a credible investment location, either to invest or to extend their existing sites, and therefore this confirms in principle the credibility of Türkiye as potential location.
3.2. Proportionality
3.2.1. Proportion of the NPV gap covered by the State aid
(86) At recital 145 of the Opening Decision, the Commission had questioned the statement of the beneficiary that the Hungarian incentives ‘will largely offset the financial advantage of the Türkiye option’. This was because the incentives cover less than 50 % of the NPV gap. Hungary considers this element as part of the proportionality analysis and submits that the significant advantage of Hungary in the qualitative (non-financial) criteria in the scoring model, such as workforce skills and availability, infrastructure, logistics, proximity to customers, risks, in combination with the payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years with incentives (fulfilling the request from the shareholder to improve the payback period to meet the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target) were sufficient for GKN Automotive ET to take a decision in December 2021 to locate the investment in Hungary. Hungary also notes that according to its experience, State aid is one of the factors, but not always the decisive one that the investors take into account when they decide on the future investment location. Hungary also submits a list of three State aid cases where the Commission approved the aid although it only covered part of the NPV gap.
3.2.2. Size of the Investment Project
(87) At recital 165 of the Opening Decision, the Commission raised questions as to whether the aid corresponds to the net-extra costs of investing in the area concerned, compared to the counterfactual in the absence of aid. Hungary submits that the scope of the Investment Project under Wave three and New wave three is different in terms of the products and volume allocation, as Wave three and New wave three are fundamentally different concepts resulting in different footprint targets in terms of number of new sites, product allocation and volume/capacity per site. Space requirements are thus not comparable. Hungary notes that production of propshafts has a significantly higher space requirement than production of sideshafts. Whereas sideshafts are approximately 0.5 meters long (they bridge the distance from the transmission in the centre of the car to the wheels), propshafts can be up to three meters long (connecting the front with the rear axle). Consequently, the equipment and floorspace requirements to produce the same volume of sideshafts and propshafts are higher for propshafts.
(88) Further at recital 165 of the Opening Decision, the Commission questioned the capacity created with the Investment Project. Hungary submits that there are several reasons why the sales and production volumes are lower than the created capacity. Capacity figures present technical maximum outputs under optimal conditions, while actual production volumes are always below technical capacities due to factors such as breakdowns, changeovers, insufficient availability of inputs or manpower. In addition, capacities need to be sized to accommodate temporary peak demands, not annual average demands, and a capacity reserve needs to be maintained for multiple clusters of products. Regarding the volumes of 2020 and 2021 that were submitted during the Commission’s preliminary examination, Hungary submits that these were affected by the demand drop following the COVID-19 outbreak and that volumes at pre-COVID levels are expected over the coming years. Finally, Hungary submits that the size of the floorplan space on the Investment Project in Hungary is comparable to that of the relocated sites. Hungary also repeats that the Investment Project comprises transfers from existing sites to the new site without an increase in capacity across the production network in Europe and that the beneficiary confirmed that no additional production capacities will be installed in the new plant in Hungary as part of this project.
3.2.3. Time frame considered for the NPV calculation
(89) With regards to the discrepancies in the timeframe used in the NPV calculation (recital 165 of the Opening Decision), Hungary submits that the timing in both scenarios is equally delayed. For both Hungary and Türkiye, the first year of production ramp-up was determined to be 2022 (no difference is assumed for start of production) and full production start is planned for 2026.
3.3. Undue negative effects on competition and trade
(90) Regarding the manifest negative effect of relocation, Hungary submits that it is convinced that Türkiye was a credible counterfactual scenario and therefore there is no causal link between the aid and the relocation.
3.4. Other
(91) Hungary does not contest the Commission’s view, at recital 111 of the Opening Decision, that RAG 2022 shall apply to the tax benefit and explains that this ‘should not change the outcome of the assessment of the Commission’, given that ‘under the Hungarian regional aid map approved by the Commission for the period of 2022-2027 (SA.63934) Felsőzsolca has the same regional aid ceiling of 50 % as under the previous regional aid map’ and the other conditions set by RAG 2022 are met.
(92) On the Commission’s question at recital 133 of the Opening Decision on what basis, in terms of providing a substantive incentive effect, Hungary provided an indicative incentive offer on 5 November 2020, Hungary submits that the official request for VIP cash grant arrived at the aid grantor on 8 April 2021, containing evidence of the internal location decision-making process. Everything prior to that date was an informal part of the procedure, helping to inform the selection process. They further referred to the limited information available at the time. Hungary also explains that during the meetings with HIPA, the beneficiary indicated on several occasions that alternative locations were being assessed and that the Company was still in the site selection process.
(93) Hungary also submits that at recital 133 of the Opening Decision the Commission is raising points about Hungary providing the beneficiary with information regarding relocation aspects. In this respect, Hungary submits that HIPA, in its quality as granting authority, is obliged to provide potential beneficiaries all information, which might be applicable in a particular case. This is a standard procedure which applies to all applications for State aid. Hungary considers that the beneficiary acted as any other diligent investor that tries to collect all the information before taking a decision. If this information from HIPA were the trigger for GKN Automotive to assess an ultra-low-cost country as an alternative location, GKN Automotive could have started preparing the alternative scenario involving a location in Türkiye already back in August 2020.
4. COMMENTS FROM OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
4.1. Comments from Melrose
(94) Melrose clarifies that on 20 April 2023, GKN Automotive and Rubin were demerged from Melrose to form part of a new independent group of companies, the ultimate parent company of which is Dowlais Group plc. Melrose also clarifies that in February 2023 the legal name of Rubin was changed to GKN Automotive Hungary Kft. with GKN Automotive becoming the sole shareholder in the place of Eachairn Aerospace Holdings Limited.
(95) Regarding the doubts expressed by the Commission on the role of Melrose in the decision-making process, in particular regarding the location decision and the business case challenge, Melrose submits that it operated a decentralised business model with the majority of business and strategy decisions taken by the portfolio company executive and management teams whilst Melrose retained the right to approve or veto certain decisions. Melrose limits its involvement with its portfolio companies to reviewing significant investment decisions to ensure they are appropriate and that they meet the expected financial requirements. By presenting the CER with a business case and summarising financial assumptions for the Investment Project in the meeting with Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management on 12 November 2020, GKN Automotive acted in accordance with Melrose’s approval requirements, as reflected in the DoA, which Hungary submitted with its comments (recital (56)). Melrose understood the strategic rationale for the proposal and the need for an initial approval of funds to allow GKN Automotive to progress with the Investment Project and therefore approved the overall business case while it mandated GKN Automotive ET to identify ways to improve the payback period below [4.5 – 5.4] years. References to Hungary in the business case and the CER were a working hypothesis. GKN Automotive ET had the mandate to lead the location selection and take a decision on the final location, provided that the underlying business case and amortisation timeline would meet Melrose’s financial expectations and approved budget.
(96) Regarding the doubts expressed by the Commission on the existence of a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years as a determinative factor, prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision, Melrose submits that in order to ensure an acceptable return on investment, for large strategic investments such as the Investment Project, there is a well-established internal practice of requiring a payback period of up to [4.5 – 5.4] years and longer payback periods are usually not considered acceptable. As supporting evidence for the existence of such an internal practice, Melrose refers to the email of Melrose of 6 August 2021, submitted in the context of the preliminary investigation, to which also Hungary refers (recital (57)). Melrose also refers to the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020, that Hungary submits with its comments (recital (60)), as contemporaneous evidence concerning the exact financial target that the Investment Project needed to achieve.
4.2. Comments from GKN Automotive
(97) GKN Automotive submits that it was the main decision-making body regarding the Investment Project and that Rubin is a subsidiary that was established only when the decision to select Hungary as location for the Investment Project was sufficiently mature. GKN Automotive clarifies that in September 2022, the legal name of Rubin was changed to GKN Automotive Hungary Kft.
(98) Regarding the scope of GKN Automotive ET’s mandate and the doubts raised by the Commission at recitals 133 to 137 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive submits that Melrose, as financial investor, was only in charge of approving the funding for the Investment Project, it did not, however, interfere with the operational aspects, which were fully in GKN Automotive ET’s hands. As the DoA demonstrates, the powers of Melrose concern predominantly financial matters. In this context, GKN Automotive ET developed the business case and all its operational aspects and presented it to Melrose on 12 November 2020 with the CER. Melrose recognised the need for an initial approval of the funds to allow GKN Automotive ET to progress with the Investment Project. At the same time, Melrose’s Executive Directors & Management challenged the payback period and asked the GKN Automotive ET to increase the financial attractiveness of the Investment Project, as evidenced by the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 (recital (60)).
(99) Regarding Melrose’s policy expecting a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years, GKN Automotive refers again to the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 (recital (60)) as evidence for that. Similarly to Hungary (recital (68)), GKN Automotive also provides the payback period for four other European projects in its recent portfolio which show a payback period of less than [4.5 – 5.4] years. GKN Automotive submits that the comparison of the presentation of the latest pre-review of 30 October 2020 (also referred to by Hungary, recital (70)), in preparation for the 12 November 2020 business case review by Melrose, with the final presentation for the business review meeting of 12 November 2020 demonstrates the evolution of the project costs as well as reflects the considerations about the need of decreasing the payback period, pointing to a clear understanding of Melrose’s policy in that respect. Finally, GKN Automotive also refers to the email of Melrose of 6 August 2021, submitted in the context of the preliminary investigation (recital (57)), as contemporaneous evidence concerning the financial targets of Melrose.
(100) Regarding the introduction of Türkiye as the only counterfactual scenario and the doubts raised by the Commission at recitals 138 and 139 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive submits that the decision not to include Türkiye in further stages of the initial location assessment in 2019 was based on the fact that Türkiye fell behind other locations based on a more comprehensive evaluation (which also included strategic and operational factors) despite a favourable assessment in terms of costs. When Melrose challenged the financial viability of the business case, the cost factor became of pivotal importance in the further location selection to improve the financial viability (payback) and therefore Türkiye became relevant again. Introducing other low-cost locations without existing GKN Automotive footprint was perceived to potentially result in substantial delays to the Investment Project and increase the risk exposure. The local presence and positive experience with existing operations became a decisive factor for choosing Türkiye as an ultra-low-cost option, given the time constraints.
(101) Regarding Türkiye being a genuine counterfactual where GKN Automotive would actually invest and regarding the timeline of activities in Türkiye and the doubts raised by the Commission at recitals 140 to 145 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive submits that at the time of the pre-notification of the aid by Hungary, the alternative scenario of carrying out the investment in Türkiye had already been developed to a considerable degree. Immediately after the introduction of that alternative into the location selection process, the Site selection project team started carrying out the respective procedures for the location to catch up with the level of the analysis of other locations and this allowed GKN Automotive to have comparably developed business cases for Hungary and Türkiye by the time the final location decision was taken. Regarding risks, GKN Automotive submits that both locations showed a significant degree of political risk but not to the extent to threaten the viability of the Investment Project. In Türkiye there has been no disruption nor other adverse effects to the production in the GKN Automotive site. Before the business case challenge by Melrose, Türkiye was a back-up option, partially due to risk considerations. After the business case challenge, this alternative option was revisited as one of the most promising and cost-efficient location whereas the importance of risk was slightly downgraded.
(102) GKN Automotive also submits that the investments of OEMs suppliers and vehicle manufacturers in Türkiye and the positive climate for British companies investing in Türkiye support the credibility of Türkiye as a potential location for the investment.
(103) Regarding the NPV gap between the two locations, GKN Automotive submits that the qualitative factors favouring the location in Hungary were sufficient to mitigate the remaining NPV gap between Türkiye and Hungary under the caveat that the Investment Project would be granted the incentives, which would offset a considerable portion of the gap. GKN Automotive also considers that further project elaborations in both Hungarian and Turkish scenarios throughout the year 2021 demonstrate that GKN Automotive was actually able to improve the financial viability of the scenario involving the investment in Hungary and bring down the expected payback period below [4.5 – 5.4] years considering the award of the aid at the time of the final location decision. Therefore, despite a remaining NPV gap compared to Türkiye, the Hungarian location was able to meet Melrose’s [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period policy.
(104) Regarding the proportionality of the aid, the size of the investment, the created capacity and the doubts raised by the Commission at recital 165 of the Opening Decision, GKN Automotive repeats the arguments already raised by Hungary on the same issues (recitals (87) and (88)).
(105) GKN Automotive welcomes the Commission’s preliminary view that the aided investment contributes to regional development, the investment is eligible for regional aid, there is need for State intervention and the measure is appropriate. Regarding the potential negative effects of the aid on competition and trade, GKN Automotive welcomes the Commission’s preliminary view that the aid intensity ceiling is not exceeded. GKN Automotive also indicates that it understands that the conclusion on the creation of overcapacity depends on the credibility of the counterfactual scenario, which it reiterates is credible, and confirms that no additional production capacities will be installed in the new plant in Hungary as part of the project and therefore there is no risk of creating overcapacity. GKN Automotive adds that it understands that the Commission considers on a preliminary basis that the aid has no counter-cohesion effect. For a potential manifest negative effect of relocation, GKN Automotive welcomes the Commission’s view that ‘should the counterfactual scenario of implementing the investment in Turkey be considered genuine, the Commission will accept that there is no causal link between the aid offered in Hungary and relocation of activity’.
4.3. Comments from Hungary on comments from other interested parties
(106) Hungary notes that the comments from the other interested parties fully align with its comments on the Opening Decision.
5. ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE
5.1. Existence of aid
(107) For the reasons set out at recitals 97 to 105 of the Opening Decision, the Commission considered that the notified measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, as it was imputable to the State and granted through State resources, was selective, procured an economic advantage to the beneficiary, was likely to affect trade between Member States, and distorted or threatened to distort competition. That assessment remains valid, hence the Commission concludes that the measure constitutes State aid.
5.2. Lawfulness of the measure
(108) If the regional investment aid amount to be granted exceeds the notification threshold laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER, the aid is not covered by the exemption provided by the GBER and has thus to be notified individually to the Commission.
(109) The measure consists of two elements: a cash grant granted before 31 December 2021 (recital (29)) and a tax benefit, which Hungary considers was granted on 12 December 2021 (recital (31)). At recital 111 of the Opening Decision, the Commission raised doubts on that granting date and considered that the aid might not have been granted yet (recital (115)).
(110) In the Northern Hungary region, the applicable maximum aid intensity, at the time of granting the cash grant was 50 %. Therefore, the applicable notification threshold (laid down in Article 4(1), point (a), GBER applicable at the time of granting the cash grant) was EUR 37.50 million, calculated in accordance with the mechanism defined in Article 2, point (20), GBER applicable at the time of granting the cash grant. As from 1 January 2022, the aid intensity for the Northern Hungary region is 60 %. (37) As of 1 July 2023, the Commission increased the notification thresholds in cases with a maximum regional aid intensity of 50 % to EUR 41.25 million and in cases with a maximum regional aid intensity of 60 % to EUR 49.5 million (38). The Commission considers that the cash grant, amounting to EUR 44.76 million in nominal value (EUR 43.01 million in discounted value) (recital (32)), already exceeded the notification threshold for a 50 % region (which was the aid intensity that applied at the time the cash grant was granted) and this meant that the measure did not benefit from the exemption from the notification obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU, regardless of the tax benefit.
(111) The Commission concludes that by making the award of the cash grant conditional upon the Commission’s approval, by adopting the granting act for the tax benefit only once the Commission’s approval is notified, and by having notified the measure, the Hungarian authorities have respected their obligations under Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(1), point (a), GBER.
5.3. Legal basis for the assessment
(112) In derogation from the general prohibition of State aid laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU, aid may be declared compatible if it can benefit from one of the derogations enumerated in the TFEU.
(113) In the present case, the measure seeks to promote regional development in an area designated in accordance with Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU. The Hungarian authorities notified that measure on the basis of the RAG 2014. The cash grant constitutes an individual aid granted on the basis of Government decree No 210/2014 (VIII.27.) ‘on the earmarked scheme for investment promotion’, a regional aid scheme implemented under the GBER (recital (29)). The tax benefit constitutes an individual aid granted on the basis of Act LXXXI of 1996 ‘on Corporate Tax and Dividend Tax’ and Government Decree No 165/2014 ‘on Development Tax Incentive (VII.17.)’, also a regional aid scheme (39) implemented under the GBER (recital (30)). On this basis, the Commission considers that, Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU, as interpreted by the regional aid guidelines, constitute the appropriate legal basis for assessing the compatibility of the measure.
(114) The Commission preliminarily established at recital 110 of the Opening Decision that the legal basis for the assessment of the cash grant is Article 107(3), point (a) TFEU, as interpreted by the RAG 2014, in accordance with paragraph 197 RAG 2022. The Incentive Agreement for the cash grant was signed before 31 December 2021, conditional only upon the Commission’s decision approving the aid. Neither Hungary, nor any other interested party contested this preliminary view following the adoption of the Opening Decision. For the reasons set out at recital 110 of the Opening Decision, therefore, the Commission concludes that the compatibility of the cash grant should be assessed on the basis of the RAG 2014.
(115) The Opening Decision expressed, at recital 111, the Commission’s preliminary view that concerning the tax benefit, the Government decision as adopted on 12 December 2021 did not constitute a granting act and that only a future Government decision could confer the beneficiary a legal right to receive the aid. Therefore, the appropriate legal basis for the assessment of the tax benefit would be Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU, as interpreted by the RAG 2022. Neither Hungary, nor any other interested party contested this preliminary view following the adoption of the Opening Decision. For the reasons set out at recital 111 of the Opening Decision, therefore, the Commission concludes that the compatibility of the tax benefit should be assessed on the basis of the RAG 2022.
(116) The Commission notes that, in the specific circumstances of the present case, there is nothing that would prevent it from assessing part of the aid on the basis of the RAG 2014 and part of the aid on the basis of the RAG 2022 (referred together as the ‘RAGs’). In any event, the provisions of the RAGs that are relevant for the below assessment are materially identical and, moreover, as clarified at recital (14), Miskolc is eligible for regional aid on the basis of the regional aid map 2014 and also on the basis of the regional aid map 2022. Moreover, the increase of the maximum aid intensity in the Northern Hungary region, from 50 % to 60 % (recital (110)), does not affect the outcome of the overall compatibility assessment, as presented in section 5.4.
5.4. Compatibility of the measure
(117) In the Opening Decision, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measure on the basis of: (i) the credibility of the counterfactual scenario; (ii) the incentive effect; and (iii) the proportionality of the aid. In addition, the Commission noted that it could not be excluded that the measure contributes to, or reinforces, the creation of overcapacity in a market in absolute decline and is causal to the relocation of activities from another Member State, which would constitute manifest negative effects on competition and trade (Section 2.9). Paragraph 26 RAG 2014 and paragraph 39 RAG 2022 set out the cumulative criteria that an aid measure must meet to be considered compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU. It follows that, if the measure does not comply with one or more of those criteria, the measure cannot be considered compatible with the internal market. The Commission first assessed the incentive effect criterion.
5.4.1. Incentive effect
(118) Section 3.5 RAG 2014 and section 5.2 RAG 2022 require that aid has an incentive effect. An incentive effect is present when the aid changes the behaviour of an undertaking in a way that it carries out additional activity contributing to the development of an area that it would not have carried out, or would only have done in a limited or different manner or in another location, if the aid was not granted. The aid must not subsidise the costs of an activity that an undertaking would carry out in any event and must not compensate for the normal business risk of an economic activity.
Formal incentive effect
(119) According to paragraphs 64 and 65 RAG 2014 and paragraphs 62 and 63 RAG 2022, the formal incentive effect requirement is met if works on an individual investment start only after the application for aid has been submitted. As established already at recital 120 of the Opening Decision, this condition is met in the present case as the beneficiary applied for aid on 8 April 2021 (cash grant) and 31 March 2021 (tax benefit), while works on the Investment Project only started on 28 April 2022 (recital (25)).
Substantive incentive effect
(120) As there are many valid reasons for a company to locate its investment in a certain region, even without any aid being granted, the RAGs require the Commission to verify in detail that the aid is necessary to provide a substantive incentive effect for the investment. This can be proven in two possible ways (see paragraph 61 RAG 2014 and paragraph 59 RAG 2022), that is to say that the aid: gives an incentive to invest in the area concerned because otherwise the investment would not be sufficiently profitable for the aid beneficiary (40) (scenario 1, investment decision), or gives an incentive to locate a planned investment in the area concerned rather than elsewhere because it offsets the net disadvantages and costs of investing in a location in the area concerned (scenario 2, location decision).
(121) As set out in section 3.5.2 RAG 2014 and section 5.2.1.2 RAG 2022, the Member State must provide clear evidence that the aid has an actual impact on the investment choice or on the choice of the investment location. To that end, the Member State must provide a comprehensive description of the counterfactual scenario in which the beneficiary receives no aid. The Commission must verify that this alternative scenario is realistic and credible. Paragraph 68 RAG 2014 and paragraph 66 RAG 2022 indicate that a counterfactual scenario is credible if it is genuine and relates to the decision-making factors prevalent at the time of the decision by the aid beneficiary regarding the investment.
(122) Paragraph 71 RAG 2014 and paragraph 69 RAG 2022 indicate that for a scenario 2 situation – which is invoked by the Hungarian authorities in the present case (recital (41)) – the Member State could prove the incentive effect of the aid by providing the undertaking’s documents showing that a comparison has been made between the costs and benefits of locating the investment in the assisted region concerned and those of locating the investment in alternative location(s). It is clear from paragraph 70 RAG 2022 and from the Commission’s decision-making practice based on the RAG 2014 (41), that such documents should be contemporaneous to the decision-making process concerning the investment or its location. The Commission verifies whether such comparisons are realistic. For that purpose, paragraph 72 RAG 2014 and paragraph 70 RAG 2022 invite the Member State to rely on official board documents, risk assessments (including the assessment of location-specific risks), financial reports, internal business plans, expert opinions and other studies and documents that elaborate on investment scenarios.
(123) To verify the viability of the project in a scenario 2 context, all relevant costs and revenues (42) have to be taken into account, with the exception of possible subsidies available in the alternative location, where this alternative location is in the EEA.
(124) Already as part of the pre-notification exchanges and as further complemented throughout the Commission’s preliminary examination, the Hungarian authorities submitted information documenting the decision-making process of GKN Automotive and Melrose and presented a counterfactual scenario involving the implementation of the project in Eskişehir, Türkiye.
(125) In its comments to the Opening Decision, Hungary maintained its view, as explained at recitals 126 and 127 of the Opening Decision, that the GKN Automotive ET took the final location decision only in December 2021, whereas Melrose’s preceding approval of the CER in December 2020 only constituted a preliminary securing of the project funding and did not constitute a decision on the investment location (Section 3.1.1).
(126) In order to assess the credibility of the counterfactual scenario invoked by Hungary, the Commission examined: (i) whether the GKN Automotive ET could finally decide on the location or had the freedom to change the location of the investment, after the approval of the CER and to what extent a decisive payback threshold of [4.5 – 5.4] years existed (Section 5.4.1.1); (ii) why Türkiye was further investigated as the only alternative location, while other locations also seemed promising from a cost perspective (Section 5.4.1.2); and (iii) whether Türkiye was a genuine counterfactual where the beneficiary would have invested in the absence of aid in Hungary or whether the perceived risks of carrying out the investment in Türkiye might have constituted a deterrent factor so that the investment would have taken place in Hungary even without the aid (Section 5.4.1.3).
5.4.1.1. GKN Automotive’s mandate
(127) During the Commission’s preliminary examination, Hungary provided documents pointing to Melrose as the decision-making entity for the purposes of selecting the Investment Project’s location (recital (44)). Hungary did not provide any contemporaneous evidence on either (i) GKN Automotive ET’s mandate and decision-making power to improve the business case payback period by changing the location described in the CER or by deciding upon the location, (ii) the provisional nature of the CER, or on (iii) discussions regarding the unmet decisive threshold of a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period (recitals (44) and (46)).
(128) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary considers that the Commission’s serious doubts as to the credibility of the counterfactual scenario are caused by an erroneous assumption that the decision-making processes at stake (within a financial group) should follow the same rules and/or rationale that the Commission observes when dealing with ‘conventional manufacturing companies’, which may accept longer payback periods to decide on investments.
(129) The Commission considers this argument irrelevant, as it did not assess Melrose’s or GKN’s decision-making processes concerning the investment and/or the location, based on a comparison with other companies. It is evident from section 3.3.1.2. of the Opening Decision that such doubts resulted from the Commission’s understanding of the beneficiary’s own decision-making process, based on the documents and information provided in the context of the preliminary examination. Furthermore, concerning Hungary’s observation that Melrose would consider ‘much shorter time frames for payback periods’, the Commission notes that in the Opening Decision its doubts were not the result of the unreasonableness of the payback period but rather whether, in the case at hand, there was indeed a stringent requirement for a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period that forced GKN Automotive to re-open the site selection process and identify scenarios in which the investment could bring the required payback within that [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit.
(130) Hungary further argued in its observations on the Opening Decision that the location decision was an operational decision which did not fall within Melrose’s competence, such competence being limited to matters of ‘high financial importance’ (recital (56)). As a supporting document, Hungary submitted GKN Automotive’s DoA. The Commission notes that the DoA lists, among the matters on which Melrose’s approval is required, decisions concerning funding and security as well as capital expenditure above GBP […] (recital (56)). The Investment Project clearly met this threshold. The Commission further notes that, according to the DoA, Melrose’s approval is also necessary for: ‘property transactions’ (with very limited exceptions). Hungary explained that the DoA does not relate to the operational management or execution of the areas covered by DoA, which would include operational decisions on matters such as market penetration, the specifics of manufacturing footprint changes (e.g., [transfer of business] or new site establishments, or product line refurbishments, which would be for the management team of the business to determine). The Commission considers that, while it might be plausible that Melrose is not involved in every operational aspect of areas it decided upon (such as the Investment Project), the key question is whether the decision to carry out the Investment Project in Hungary can be reduced to an operational decision implementing Melrose’s investment decision. For the reasons set out in the following recital, the Commission considers that it is implausible that the location decision can be considered as an operational decision simply implementing Melrose’s investment decision.
(131) First, the argument that GKN Automotive was the entity deciding unilaterally on the location after the CER approval of December 2020 is contradicted by the clear wording of the CER. The relevant capital expenditure referred to a project consisting of ‘consolidating the current footprint in … into a new site located in Hungary’ (emphasis added). The CER budget approval was, therefore, inherently based on the Investment Project being located in Hungary, a location selected in a multi-stage process, for which the investment costs were specifically calculated in the CER. Second, this conclusion is not called into question by Hungary’s argument that Melrose signed the CER being ‘in agreement with the concept/big picture’ – as stated in Melrose’s email of 9 December 2020 (recital (61)). The CER summarises the project ‘consolidating the current footprint in … into a new site located in Hungary’. All further details are provided in the annex to the CER (43). The Commission considers, therefore, that the agreement on the ‘concept/big picture’ should be read as including the location of the Investment Project (i.e. Hungary). Based on the evidence in the case file, the Commission does not consider the choice of the Investment Project’s location as a matter of secondary, operational, importance which could be changed unilaterally by GKN Automotive despite having been approved by Melrose.
(132) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary further commented on the Commission’s interpretation of the meeting notes and preparatory document of the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, which seemed to point to Melrose as the decision-making body for the site selection (recital (44)). Hungary considers that those documents, which mention Melrose’s approval of the ‘Land selection’ should be read as referring to such approval within the broader context of the overall business case review and argues that the 12 November 2020 presentation shows that Melrose was only asked to approve the business case, and was not asked to approve the investment location. More precisely, Hungary considers that the relevant sentence should read ‘document for Melrose approval of the business case with Hungary as a working hypothesis for the investment location’ (44). The Commission notes, first, that this interpretation goes against the text of the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020, which, on the same slide, provides as next steps both the ‘Business Case Update’ for ‘approval by Melrose’, and the ‘Land Selection’ for ‘Approval by Melrose’, thereby indicating that Melrose would be asked to approve the land selection after the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020. Although, taking into account the 12 November 2020 presentation, the Commission could accept that the approval of the ‘Land selection’ in the said slide could be read as referring to such approval within the broader context of the overall business case review, this still does not mean that the location selection remained open, after Melrose had approved the Investment Project. This is all the clearer based upon the reasoning set out in the following recital.
(133) The Commission notes that there is nothing in the 12 November 2020 presentation that points to Hungary being only a working hypothesis or the location analysis not being finalised at the stage when the CER was approved by Melrose. On the contrary, the location was presented as a key element of the Investment Project. In this respect, the first slide has as a subject ‘Recap: [Investment Project] comprises the 2nd wave of consolidating our European footprint[transferring business] … and building a new site in Hungary’ (45). The second slide states ‘Miskolc, HU selected as location for new site to take advantage of lower factor cost in Eastern Europe and to balance exposure in EEU countries’. Moreover, the presentation includes three appendices. Two of them are relevant in this context. The first appendix summarises the work on the business case up until the request for its approval, and includes language such as ‘Approach for production transfer bottom up validated and refined’, which includes the ‘Construction of one new site in Hungary (Miskolc area) sized for the scope of this wave’. Furthermore, the appendix explains that ‘[a]ll core assumptions [are] extensively validated, and based on GKN actuals/references, reputable 3rd-party party sources (e.g. Eurostat) or expert interviews (e.g. regarding HUN labour market)’. The third appendix provides an overview of different steps the land selection process had followed, starting from the first selection of the countries in the scope of the analysis until the ‘final recommendation of the focus region and site’. Miskolc was presented as ‘decision proposal’. It is clear, therefore, that Hungary was presented as an inherent element of the business case to be approved by Melrose, as is also evident from the CER.
(134) Hungary did not provide any other contemporaneous evidence that could substantiate its argument that Hungary would only have been an ‘assumed location’, ‘working hypothesis’ or ‘hypothetical scenario’ at the stage when the CER was approved.
(135) On the basis of the above, the Commission finds that the location was an integral part of the CER approved by Melrose in December 2020, and Hungary has not demonstrated, on the basis of credible evidence, that Hungary constituted only a working hypothesis for the location of the Investment Project and that GKN Automotive was entitled to decide on a different location in the absence of further approval by Melrose.
(136) Although, on the basis of the evidence assessed at recital (133), the Commission considers that the location was an integral part of the CER approval of December 2020, the Commission nevertheless considers (in line with Hungary’s submissions (recital 57 of the Opening Decision)) that the summary nature of the CER approval left sufficient scope for Melrose to attach certain conditions to its approval. In this respect, and in light of Hungary’s arguments (recital (43)), the Commission needs to examine whether Melrose’s approval was, nevertheless, conditional on a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback target being met. At recitals (137) to (160), the Commission assesses, therefore, whether such [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback requirement was a decision-making factor prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision.
(137) In the course of the Commission’s preliminary examination, Hungary argued that although Melrose had approved the CER, in the preceding meeting of 12 November 2020 it had challenged the business case since it did not match Melrose’s general practice of requiring a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years for big investments. As noted at recital 135 of the Opening Decision, the Commission could not establish without serious doubts that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years constituted a decisive element to invest or not, prevalent at the time of the investment and location decision.
(138) The Commission considers that the evidence referred to at recitals 135 and 136 of the Opening Decision supports the conclusion that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years was not a decisive element to invest because: (1) the CER was signed acknowledging a payback period of [5.4 – 7] years; (2) the more detailed description attached to the CER includes a clear reference to a [5.4 – 7] years payback period without any reference to a target timeline not exceeding [4.5 – 5.4] years; (3) the Strategy itself (46) recognised that even if some individual waves look unattractive from a payback perspective, the full benefits of the Strategy will not be achieved from a piecemeal approach to projects, suggesting that the payback period was not, in itself, a determinative factor in the decision-making process for individual waves and was not necessarily to be evaluated wave per wave; (4) the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 mentioned a target payback of less than [5.6 – 7.2] years for New wave three, without any reference to a policy of [4.5 – 5.4] years; (5) on 10 November 2020, the Site selection project team sent the draft presentation for the Melrose review meeting, referring to a [5.4 – 7] years payback, to the CFO asking for his comments prior to the meeting with Melrose. Neither Hungary nor any of the other interested parties has submitted any evidence indicating a reply to this request from the Site selection project team, nor any comments nor proposals for amendments by the CFO to this presentation, despite the fact that the draft presentation referred to [5.4 – 7] years payback; (6) in November 2020, after Melrose’s alleged challenge to the business case to meet the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target and in the discussions within the Site selection project team on alternative locations, there is no evidence of a payback period calculation/consideration for the alternative locations (Türkiye, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia or Morocco), which, according to Hungary, were considered before concluding to promote Türkiye as the alternative location; (7) the comparison of Hungary and Türkiye by the Site selection project team on 17 December 2020 and the alleged preliminary location decision in January 2021 were based on the NPV comparison and scoring of the two locations without any calculation or consideration of the payback period. The earliest evidence of a payback period calculation for the alternative investment in Türkiye dates back only to December 2021 – that is: one year after the CER approval and the preliminary location decision of January 2021.
(139) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary maintains that Melrose’s approval of the CER did not constitute a definite approval, but only a pre-approval of the business case to allow the release of funding for the Investment Project to move forward (recital (73)). Hungary also maintains that Melrose challenged the payback period of [5.4 – 7] years and tasked the GKN Automotive ET to increase the financial attractiveness of the business case and to comply with the expected payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years (recital (59)). This position is supported by GKN Automotive and Melrose which provided signed declarations on this part of the decision-making process (recitals (54) and (140)).
(140) The retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 dated 10 February 2023 and signed by representatives of Melrose and GKN Automotive, constitute an ex post declaration, as a reference document for the Commission in the context of the formal investigation, on what had been discussed during the meeting of 12 November 2020. Those retrospective minutes indicate that ‘[a member of Melrose] raises concerns about the financial viability of the business case on the basis that the payback period exceeded [4.5 – 5.4] years. He elaborated that a long payback period would mean Melrose Industries may not see a full return on their cash investment on the project during their period of ownership. Nevertheless, all participants of the meeting agreed on the strategic necessity of the project to future proof the GKN Driveline business, notwithstanding that the payback was less attractive than would ordinarily be considered acceptable. Following discussion, the Melrose Industries representatives signified their approval of the project business case, thereby permitting the project to proceed on the basis of the project budget. However, they tasked the GKN Automotive team to revisit the project assumptions to identify ways to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years by increasing value and/or reducing cost’.
(141) The Commission considers, first, that this wording in the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020, points to the CER being a formal approval of the business case and Investment Project, and not merely an ‘initial approval’ or ‘pre-approval’ as Hungary argues. In any event, no further final or definite approval has been provided. Indeed, Hungary stated that no further approval by Melrose was needed (recital (76)). Second, the retrospective minutes support the Commission’s view that, due to the Investment Project being of ‘strategic necessity’, Melrose accepted a [5.4 – 7] year payback period, while expressing their wish to still see the payback period improved. In any event, since this declaration was drafted for the purposes of the present proceedings and at a date far removed from the material time, such declaration is of low probative value and, as such, is not capable of calling into question the documentary evidence relied on that is contemporaneous to the events in question. That conclusion is not called into question by the fact that the declaration was made by an individual who participated in the relevant events (47).
(142) The Commission considers that the written statement of GKN Automotive’s current CEO (recital (54)), due to its ex post nature, is also of low probative value for the reasons already stated at recital (141). The Commission also notes that in that statement, GKN Automotive refers to a lack of access to documents of its former parent company, Melrose. However, GKN Automotive also has not provided any information on any reference to contacts with Melrose to obtain relevant documents to further substantiate the statements made during the preliminary and formal investigation. Melrose in its comments also did not provide any contemporaneous documents to support the decision-making process.
(143) With respect to the contemporaneous, documentary evidence, Melrose’s email of 9 December 2020 transmitting the signed CER to GKN Automotive shows that Melrose agreed on the ‘concept/big picture’ of the project, while clarifying that it was not giving a ‘blanket approval to spend £[220 – 400]m’ (i.e. the total cost of the project) as it was expecting the final expenditure values would change compared to those in the CER ‘as each element progresses and the business case becomes clearer’ and that it wanted to be kept updated on each step. Although this document clarifies that there existed a wish to still improve the financial performance indicators of the investment, there is no reference to any decisive target of a maximum [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback or any reference to a scenario that the Investment Project would not be implemented if the ‘target’ was not met. If such payback target was discussed during the business case review on 12 November 2020 as a strict condition for approval, the Commission would expect to find a reference to it, either in the e-mail in which Melrose listed its main comments on the approved CER, or in the CER itself.
(144) In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary highlights that in its role as a financial investor, Melrose is mainly interested in the financial profitability of investments. Therefore, financial performance indicators such as the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback threshold are used in the decision-making process ‘based on common practice’; and Melrose ‘tends to look at investments with a payback under [2.1 – 2.9] years’, while for larger/strategic projects a payback above [4.5 – 5.4] years would not be considered. Hungary, in this context, did not submit any contemporaneous evidence but only referred to the e-mail of Melrose of 6 August 2021 (recital (57)), which was drawn up in the context of the preparation of a reply to the Commission’s request for information referred to at recital (3) and, therefore, was only prepared after the period in which the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback was said to be a prevalent factor in such process (recital (59)). The Commission notes that those considerations by Hungary and the declaration by Melrose, even if they could be considered reliable, can only point to a ‘common practice’ but do not provide any evidence as to the decisive elements concerning the Investment Project specifically, for which concrete evidence showing Melrose’s and GKN Automotive’s openness to accepting a longer payback period is available (specifically, the signed CER, the more detailed description attached to the CER, and the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020).
(145) In its comments, Hungary also replies to the other elements, based on which the Commission questioned the application to the Investment Project of a strict investment policy providing for a maximum payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years:
(146) Hungary replies to (recital (68)) the Commission’s argument that even a project that is unattractive from the payback perspective could be approved in view of ‘the full benefits’ of the Strategy, as the Strategy itself recognised (point (3) of recital (137)). The Commission notes that Hungary puts forwards elements that it had already provided during the preliminary examination and submits no further evidence in this regard. The Commission accepts the argument that for implementation purposes, each project can be assessed separately based on its own payback period. However, this does not necessarily mean that each project as such needs to comply with a binding individual payback target. In other words, a general strategy, based on several projects could have a certain target in terms of payback period, while the underlying projects could have different targets, that may be higher or lower than the general target. This is recognised in the Strategy itself, which stressed the need to avoid a ‘piecemeal approach to projects’. (48) (147) Hungary and GKN Automotive also provided evidence on the payback period of other projects in the form of a table listing four projects (recital (68)). However, the fact that those projects had a lower payback period is not decisive and does not evidence the required payback period for the Investment Project. The Commission notes that, in any event, the projects listed in that table are not comparable to the Investment Project, as they are of much lower cost and concern only the [transfer of business] of certain sites and the transferring of operations to already existing sites, instead of the setting up of a new factory. It is reasonable to consider that the construction of a new establishment could require more time to achieve its financial target than the [transfer of business] of a site, so that it could well fall into the category of cases which, according to the Strategy, ‘look unattractive from a payback perspective’ but which were necessary to unlock the full benefits of the Strategy.
(148) Regarding point (4) of recital (138), Hungary observes (recital (69)) that the payback range of [a range between 5 – 7] years initially identified for New wave three (representing an improvement of the [7.5 – 11] year payback period of Wave three) was ‘only a likely range… sensitive to some core assumptions’. The Commission has no reason to doubt that the change to Wave three was intended to reduce the payback range to approximately [a range between 5 – 7] years. However, the Commission’s main argument was that the preparatory document for the GKN Automotive ET meeting of 12 August 2020 clearly mentioned a target payback period of ‘<[5.6 – 7.2] years’. Hungary explains that this constituted only an internal target for the Site selection project team, different from the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target needed to receive Melrose’s approval on the CER and well known by the GKN Automotive ET. Nevertheless, no further evidence was submitted as to why the Site selection project team would work towards an internal target different to that allegedly necessary to ensure Melrose’s approval of the project a few months later. Hungary explains that the GKN Automotive ET was aware of the [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit applying to the decision-making process at stake.
(149) The Commission consider that such submissions lack plausibility. First, neither the existence of such a [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit or the GKN Automotive ET’s awareness of it are proven with contemporaneous documents, and cannot be deduced from the mere fact that in the past the company accepted payback values much lower than [4.5 – 5.4] years, for projects that do not appear to be comparable to the Investment Project (see also recital (69)). Second, and in any event, even if it were accepted that such a [4.5 – 5.4]-year requirement was strictly applicable – despite the Strategy’s acknowledgement that certain steps can involve unattractive payback periods – and the GKN Automotive ET was aware of such requirement, it is doubtful firstly, why the site selection team would have proposed, in August 2020, a project with a payback of under [5.6 – 7.2] years, and secondly, why the GKN Automotive ET would have submitted the Investment Project with a [5.4 – 7] year payback period for Melrose’s approval in November 2020.
(150) Regarding point (5) of recital (138), Hungary explains that, from August 2020 onwards, GKN Automotive involved its CFO in an effort to try and reach the [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback target. In order to substantiate this element, Hungary provides an interim document of 30 October 2020 which refers to a payback period of [5.5 – 7.5] years. The Commission notes that that document does not refer to any ‘unmet’ payback target. The fact that the payback period still improved from [5.5 – 7.5] years in October 2020 to [5.4 – 7] years in November 2020 does not substantiate that there was a target of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years. It can merely give an indication that GKN Automotive made an effort to reduce the payback period. Furthermore, throughout the entire decision-making process, there is no evidence of any discussion with – or instruction from – the CFO aiming at reducing the payback period to a maximum of [4.5 – 5.4] years. On the contrary, despite allegedly being aware of a strict [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit, the GKN Automotive ET submitted the Investment Project for Melrose’s approval in November 2020 in the CER with a payback period of [5.4 – 7] years and received such approval in December 2020 without any reference to a [4.5 – 5.4]-year limit.
(151) On point (6) of recital (138), neither Hungary nor the other interested parties provided further arguments or evidence. The Commission therefore maintains its view that the lack of a payback period calculation/consideration for the alternative locations (Türkiye, Poland, Slovakia, Serbia or Morocco) allegedly considered in response to Melrose’s challenge of the business case for the Investment Project, supports the conclusion that a payback period of maximum [4.5 – 5.4] years was not a decisive element in the assessment of whether to invest in a specific location.
(152) On point (7) of recital (138), Hungary submits that after having received Melrose’s approval (for which the calculation of the payback period was mandatory), GKN Automotive used the NPV methodology for comparing locations. Hungary argues in this context that in other large investment cases, where the beneficiaries were conventional manufacturing companies, the company decided on the basis of NPV calculations, not of payback periods (recital (73)).
(153) The Commission does not consider this argument to be convincing. First, if GKN Automotive had a binding target of a payback period of a maximum of [4.5 – 5.4] years, for which a location change would be the solution, it is not credible that in January 2021, Türkiye was selected as an alternative location to Hungary without any verification or reference to that location’s potential of meeting that target. Second, even if GKN Automotive had initially assumed that Türkiye was likely to meet the payback requirement, given that it constitutes an ultra-low-cost country, in a situation such as that described by Hungary, where GKN Automotive had to find an alternative location to meet the payback requirement under tight time constraints (recitals (100) and (167)), it is not plausible that the relevant team continued to develop the alternative case involving a location in Türkiye for approximately one year (until December 2021) without being sure that the Turkish location would meet the payback target. Such approach would have risked unnecessarily losing time and might have resulted in the team having to restart the process again with further delays (which would be counter to the alleged urgency of the situation). In this context the Commission recalls that the first verification of the payback period expected in Türkiye was only carried out in December 2021 and it shows payback periods (with and without subsidies) comparable to those expected in Hungary, and in any event not below [4.5 – 5.4] years. (49) (154) Second, if it were correct that GKN Automotive switched to the NPV methodology in its decision-making, it is not explained why the content of the presentation for the 9 December 2021 meeting (i.e. the alleged final location decision) reintroduces the concept of payback period, by providing that ‘Incentives (…) will enable the project to meet the target payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years ([5.5 – 7.1] years w/o incentives)’. The Commission notes in this context that in its request for information of 30 September 2021, it had enquired about the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target (recital (5)). In its memorandum of 25 April 2024 (recital (13)), Hungary argued that the presentation for the meeting of 29 January 2021 was superseded by the presentation for the meeting of 9 December 2021, with the latter including a payback period calculation. The Commission does not consider this argument to be relevant since the Commission’s doubt related specifically to the period December 2020 and January 2021 when Türkiye was allegedly reconsidered and selected as an alternative location for the Investment Project.
(155) In addition, concerning Hungary’s argument on the appropriateness of the NPV methodology in general and its comparison with other Commission decisions, the Commission considers this is irrelevant since the RAGs require the Commission to assess the decision-making process of the specific project for which the regional aid is notified.
(156) Finally, Hungary argued that GKN Automotive had been informed that NPV comparison was ‘the standard approach required in order to demonstrate a funding requirement, relevant to regional aid’. The Commission considers however that, according to Hungary’s position, supported by Melrose and GKN Automotive, in the period December 2020 and January 2021, GKN Automotive sought to reduce the payback period to below [4.5 – 5.4] years. In that context, a comparison of payback periods would have been relevant, whereas an NPV comparison rather suggests that Türkiye had been introduced with the purpose of building a counterfactual scenario on the basis of which regional aid could be requested in Hungary. This conclusion is, in fact, supported by Hungary’s submission that GKN Automotive conducted the NPV calculation because an NPV calculation was ‘the standard approach required in order to demonstrate a funding requirement, relevant to regional aid’. The Commission recalls in this context that GKN Automotive’s request for incentives to Hungary was updated in this same period, more precisely already on 18 December 2020, with the introduction of Türkiye as the counterfactual location for the Investment Project.
(157) Hungary further refers to a request for consultancy services dated 27 November 2020 (recital (63)) by quoting a single phrase that reads ‘no definite decisions for the project or a site have been made’. The Commission considers, also in light of the other arguments in this section, that this sentence cannot be relied upon as proving that Hungary had not been selected by December 2020. The service request further reads: ‘We have already identified potential locations and land plots for the new site; currently we favor a site in North-East-Hungary among the options considered; no definite decisions for the project or a site have been made’ and then identifies the ‘support needs’ by explaining: ‘We are seeking guidance on the following questions: Validation of current site selection preference; Which forms of state aid may be available to us?; How to best frame the request for state aid considering our scenario (potential relocation, …)?; What supplementary material needs to prepared and what are proven formats for a decision of national and Eu authorities?; Hands-on support in preparation of application material’. The Commission notes on this basis that the service request, seen in its entirety, rather shows that following the business case review of 12 November 2020, the Site selection project team contacted the consultancy firm for support to prepare a convincing State aid case.
(158) With respect to recital 136, point (f) of the Opening Decision, Hungary submits (recital (75)) that it is common practice within GKN Automotive not to consider sales proceeds from land and buildings. As this argument is substantiated by capital expenditure requests from other projects already submitted at the time of the preliminary investigation (50), the Commission accepts this argument but considers this element as non-decisive for its overall assessment as it cannot dispel alone the doubts on the application to the Investment Project of a strict investment policy providing for a maximum payback period of [4.5 – 5.4] years. Hungary further submits that the aid amount in the indicative offer was not considered in the calculations by GKN Automotive because it acted prudently and the aid was not certain. The Commission notes that this argument does not change the fact that those calculations formed the basis for Melrose approval of the CER, which, therefore, clearly did not take into account any aid.
(159) Finally, Hungary expresses concerns with the Commission’s assumptions that a formal investment policy needed to be in place for Melrose to be able to challenge the business case for the Investment Project (recital (77)). The Commission clarifies that the Opening Decision is not based on Hungary needing to prove the business case challenge exclusively on the basis of the existence of a ‘formal’ investment policy. Rather, Hungary had claimed that a ‘strict investment policy’ existed in the present case, and which was applicable to the decision-making process. The serious doubts expressed in the Opening Decision are based on Hungary having failed to provide any documentary evidence substantiating the existence of such ‘strict investment policy’. Although the existence of an investment policy (formal or informal) providing for the [4.5 – 5.4]-year target and applicable to the Investment Project might have helped to substantiate the applicability of such criteria to the decision-making process at issue, the Commission has never contested that, in the absence of it, Melrose could have requested that the Investment Project comply with the said target. However, no evidence has been provided that Melrose made such a request and that locating the Investment Project in Hungary would not have been approved unless it respected a [4.5 – 5.4]-year target.
(160) The Commission therefore concludes that Hungary has failed to demonstrate that Melrose’s investment policy included a decisive threshold of a [4.5 – 5.4]-year payback period and to adduce convincing evidence against the Commission’s understanding that through its approval of the CER in December 2020, Melrose had already decided to invest in Hungary after GKN Automotive had explored Poland and Slovakia as alternatives, and without any consideration having been given to any aid (recital 129 and 136 point (f) of the Opening Decision).
(161) Finally, Hungary reacts to the serious doubts that the Commission expressed at recital 133 of the Opening Decision that GKN Automotive might have investigated Türkiye only for the purposes of being able to present an alternative location as part of the State aid review. Hungary argues that HIPA provided the beneficiary with all of relevant information, including information concerning relocation, in August 2020. Therefore, GKN Automotive could have started preparing the alternative scenario involving a location in Türkiye already in August 2020. While this hypothesis could be correct, it is clear from the evidence submitted that Türkiye was not considered before November 2020. The Commission also notes that in the presentation for the 12 November 2020 meeting, GKN Automotive presented the potential for incentives in Miskolc to Melrose by referring to the aid values in the 5 November 2020 informal offer (recital (45)) and by considering certain key eligibility criteria for receiving aid. One of the criteria reads ‘Investment in new assets in regional aid target region (e.g., Miskolc) that would without a grant financially not [be] viable or would result in a different location decisions (more developed/non-EU)’. There was also a reference to the relocation aspect and the need for Commission approval. In other words, GKN Automotive seemed to be well aware that a counterfactual scenario would be needed for GKN Automotive to be able to receive regional investment aid for the Investment Project. At the same time, no such counterfactual scenario existed at that point in time and consequently no aid was taken into account in the business case presented to Melrose. Considering those observations together with the Commission’s findings on the approval of the Investment Project based on the CER, the Commission considers it plausible that Türkiye was introduced as a counterfactual scenario specifically for the purposes of improving GKN Automotive’s chances of receiving State aid from Hungary.
(162) In any event, it follows from the foregoing, that Hungary has failed to prove, on the basis of clear evidence – including genuine, official and contemporaneous documents related to GKN Automotive’s and Melrose’s decision-making process – that Türkiye constituted a realistic and credible alternative location for the Investment Project in the absence of aid.
5.4.1.2. Türkiye as the only counterfactual
(163) At recitals 138 and 139 of the Opening Decision, the Commission raised doubts as to why Türkiye was considered as the only counterfactual scenario for the Investment Project and questioned whether it could be the case, instead, that Türkiye was only investigated for the purposes of being able to present an alternative location as part of the State aid review, and thereby improve the chances of aid to be granted by Hungary in favour of the Investment Project being found compatible with the internal market. Hungary and GKN Automotive submit (recitals (79) and (100)) that Türkiye, with existing operations demonstrating a very good operational performance and a local team matching the timeline, was the only feasible low-cost option in November and December 2020, when the location selection was turned into a purely cost-centred exercise, which would enable the Investment Project to be implemented within the required timeframe. Hungary and GKN Automotive also submit that despite the limited size of the existing GKN Automotive operation in Türkiye, this site has continually demonstrated very good operational performance.
(164) In his signed declaration of 11 April 2024 (recital (54)), GKN Automotive’s CEO explained what had happened in the period just before and after the meeting of 12 November 2020. According to that declaration, between 12 November 2020 and early December 2020, multiple discussions took place between the Site selection project team, the CEO and his colleagues in the GKN Automotive ET on how to improve the project payback period. ‘These discussions took the form of specific project reviews, regular team meetings, individual catch-ups and informal discussions. Scheduled meetings took place in various participant settings on November 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, December 4, 10. Further discussions took place outside of scheduled meetings during this time via phone or when meeting in person at the company’s offices.’ The CEO further declared: ‘during these internal discussions, we reached the conclusion that to improve the project payback to the expected level, we would have to consider an even lower cost location. As “ultra-low-cost” locations, we considered at various stages Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Morocco and Turkey as options. These countries were considered as genuine counterfactuals where the investment project could take place.’
(165) In order to substantiate these arguments, Hungary submitted three online meeting invitations in November/December 2020. Hungary claims that in those meetings, GKN Automotive concluded that Türkiye was the appropriate counterfactual to explore (recital (80)). The meeting invitations relate to meetings on 19 November and 4 December 2020 with the subject ‘catch -up call’ between two GKN Automotive individuals involved in the Investment Project and a meeting on 10 December 2020 involving GKN Automotive staff involved in the Investment Project and local staff in Türkiye for a ‘quick [Investment Project] review to agree on the next steps’. Such documents do not include any reference to locations other than Türkiye or Hungary. Furthermore, neither Hungary nor GKN Automotive provided any supporting documentation or meeting minutes relating to those meetings, which could evidence what was discussed during those meetings and calls.
(166) The Commission finds that, notwithstanding the additional evidence described at recital (165), there is nothing that points to more detailed follow-up on alternative locations, or an actual comparison between alternative locations and Türkiye. This supports the Commission’s conclusion at recital (135) that in December 2020, the location selection process had been finalised and Hungary was not only a ‘working hypothesis’ or an ‘assumed location’.
(167) Regarding the argument that the time factor (i.e. the urgency of the Investment Project) was an element affecting the decision-making process, the Commission notes that, even if this were a consideration, Hungary or GKN Automotive did not submit any document to substantiate this urgency in the period November/December 2020. Nor did they provide any evidence to substantiate that this alleged urgency led to Türkiye being explored as the only alternative location to Hungary, without detailed follow-up on alternative locations, or an actual comparison between alternative locations and Türkiye. Moreover, the Commission finds that argument contradictory to the Hungarian argument that, on 12 November 2020, Hungary was only a ‘working hypothesis’. If it were correct that Hungary was only a ‘working hypothesis’, the project timeline, as set out in the presentation for the meeting of 12 November 2020, ought to have provided for a time period after the CER to investigate alternative locations. The project timeline, however, as it stood on 12 November 2020, refers to a ‘Decision’ and ‘Land purchase, permits, preparation of construction’ in the last quarter of 2020, therefore not leaving sufficient time for investigations into alternative locations.
(168) The Commission also considers that the ‘good operational performance’ of the small site in Türkiye, which has been in operation since 2008, was not a new factor as compared to the situation in 2019, when the option to expand the existing site in Türkiye in the context of the Strategy was discarded. Therefore, the Commission does not consider this an element that could justify why Türkiye was considered the only alternative location to Hungary to be explored. In any event, neither Hungary nor any of the other interested parties submitted any evidence on this element.
(169) The Commission therefore finds that the comments provided by Hungary and the other interested parties do not justify why only Türkiye was introduced as alternative location in an attempt to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years.
(170) In addition, the Commission notes that the retrospective minutes of the meeting of 12 November 2020 note that ‘Melrose Industries representatives tasked the GKN Automotive team to revisit the project assumptions to identify ways to improve project payback below [4.5 – 5.4] years by increasing value and/or reducing costs’. With the email dated 9 December 2020, Melrose requested to be kept updated. The Commission understands the notion of ‘identifying ways to improve’ to be wider than only pointing to a location analysis. Neither Hungary nor the other interested parties provided any evidence relating to such identification nor any evidence pointing to feedback being provided to Melrose thereon. Also, if reopening the location analysis were the only possibility for increasing the financial attractiveness of the business case (for which neither Hungary nor any of the other interested parties have provided any evidence), the Commission would expect to have evidence of follow-up and a comparison between various alternative locations before GKN Automotive concluded on Türkiye as the counterfactual location for the Investment Project.
(171) Based on the considerations recorded at recitals (127) to (161), the Commission finds that the evidence in the case file does not dispel its serious doubts as to whether the investment and location decision was not taken already in December 2020 without consideration being given to the availability of State aid or to carrying out the investment elsewhere than in Hungary. The Commission could also not establish that Türkiye was considered as an actual counterfactual location where GKN Automotive would have implemented the Investment Project in the absence of State aid from Hungary (recitals (163) to (170)). Rather, it appears that Türkiye had been introduced for the purposes of increasing the chances of the aid from Hungary being found compatible with the internal market.
5.4.1.3. Türkiye as a genuine counterfactual
(172) At recital 140 of the Opening Decision, the Commission noted that the investigation of Türkiye as a counterfactual scenario remained relatively high level until mid-2021. A senior management site visit was only organised in July 2021. At that point in time, the State aid offered by Hungary had already been pre-notified to the Commission and first contacts with the Commission services had been established. However, the Commission acknowledged that, even if Türkiye had originally been introduced into the analysis only for the purposes of improving the chances of the proposed State aid being declared compatible, it might be possible that carrying out the investment in Türkiye subsequently evolved into a genuine alternative location where GKN Automotive and Melrose were prepared to invest. However, for the reasons set out at recitals 141 to 145 of the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed serious doubts that this was the case.
(173) The Commission notes that neither Hungary, nor the interested parties argue that the location in Türkiye ‘evolved’ into a genuine alternative after being introduced for State aid purposes. In the absence of such arguments and supporting evidence, the Commission considers that, for the reasons set out at recitals 141 to 145 of the Opening Decision, and based on the conclusion at recital (171), Hungary has failed to demonstrate to the requisite standard the existence of an incentive effect under scenario 2 as set out in paragraph 61 RAG 2014 and paragraph 59 RAG 2022.
(174) Nevertheless, and for the sake of completeness, at recitals (175) to (182), the Commission addresses the arguments of Hungary and the other interested parties on ‘Türkiye as a genuine counterfactual’.
(175) Hungary and GKN Automotive submit that immediately after the introduction of the alternative location in Türkiye into the location selection process, GKN Automotive started actively developing this option. Hungary also notes that the aid applications of 8 April 2021 for the cash grant and 31 March 2021 for the tax benefit in Hungary did not imply a final location decision for GKN Automotive. The pre-notification of the case to the Commission on 11 June 2021 was necessary for GKN Automotive to understand the likelihood of obtaining incentives but GKN Automotive was in parallel developing the option of carrying out the investment in Türkiye, which, according to GKN Automotive, by June 2021 had been developed to a considerable degree.
(176) From the material available in the context of the preliminary examination, the Commission already acknowledged the documentary evidence as of December 2020 from which it appeared that Eskişehir in Türkiye, as an investment location, was compared with the selected region in Hungary. That documentary evidence showed that until June 2021 the preparatory activities in Türkiye involved contacts with local GKN staff in December 2020 on the availability of land (recital 60 of the Opening Decision), contacts with national authorities in December 2020, January 2021 and May 2021 on the availability of incentives (recital 62 and 65 of the Opening Decision) and engaging a local consultant to deal in the period February to May 2021 with building design and project planning and preparation of a general layout of works to be carried out (recital 72 of the Opening Decision). On that basis, the Commission expressed the preliminary view that the investigation of Türkiye as a counterfactual location for the investment remained relatively high level until mid-2021. The Commission considers that this reality contradicts Hungary’s argument on the time pressure which led to only Türkiye being considered as an alternative location. If indeed the time factor was a consideration, the Commission would expect activities in Türkiye to intensify immediately after Türkiye was selected as the only counterfactual location to explore. Hungary submits that the majority of activities in Türkiye were undertaken by the local team. Neither Hungary nor GKN Automotive, except for one document (recital (81)), bring further evidence of activities during that period.
(177) Hungary further submits that the reason why Türkiye was not included in the shortlist of countries drawn up at the end of 2019 in the context of the Strategy was not that its political risks were considered as deterrent, but the fact that at that time the cost was not the most important decision-making factor for GKN Automotive. Hungary and GKN Automotive also submit that in November and December 2020, the perceived risk levels of Türkiye had not materially changed and were still considered high compared to other locations. However, given that the location selection at the time turned into ‘a purely cost-centred exercise’, GKN Automotive decided that the perceived risk levels of Türkiye were tolerable.
(178) The Commission finds, first, that the alleged preliminary location decision in January 2021 and the alleged final location decision in December 2021 (recital (43)) do not support the argument that the site selection became cost-centred as of November 2020. This is because the decision in favour of Hungary was taken on the basis of non-financial advantages of the location in Hungary, despite a significant financial advantage of Türkiye (in terms of NPV gap) (recital (179)). Second, it is also not further substantiated that the perceived risk levels of Türkiye became, as from December 2020, acceptable to locate this strategic project in Türkiye.
(179) In addition, with respect to Hungary’s and GKN Automotive’s reaction to the Commission’s observation at recital 145 of the Opening Decision which questioned why a financial incentive covering less than 50 % of the NPV gap was considered as to ‘largely offset the financial advantage of the Turkey option’, Hungary considers this as an element related to the proportionality of the aid. The Commission however notes that this element is also relevant for assessing the incentive effect of the aid since the aid should influence the beneficiary’s decision-making. Hungary and GKN Automotive argue that the qualitative criteria in favour of Hungary in combination with a payback period of [4.4 – 5.3] years, with incentives, were sufficient for GKN Automotive ET to decide to locate the investment in Hungary (recitals (86) and (103)). The Commission considers this argument as contradictory to the argument that the location selection had turned into a purely cost-centred exercise. In a purely cost-centred exercise, with the NPV as the appropriate methodology after the business case challenge of November 2020 as argued by Hungary (recitals (73) and (74)), this should have resulted in Türkiye being selected, given that even taking the aid into account, a considerable NPV difference remained.
(180) Concerning Hungary’s reference to earlier Commission practice, the Commission notes that each case is to be assessed on its merits and that according to paragraph 68 RAG 2014 and paragraph 66 RAG 2022, a counterfactual scenario is considered credible if it is genuine and relates to the decision-making factors prevalent at the time of the aid beneficiary’s decision regarding the investment. While, in certain cases, State aid allowing only a partial coverage of the NPV gap may be found to provide a sufficient incentive in combination with other, qualitative factors, the allegedly cost-centred nature of the selection process contradicts Hungary’s argument in this regard.
(181) Finally, Hungary and GKN Automotive submit that the fact that Türkiye has been considered and/or selected by several other investors for their investments confirms, in principle, its credibility as potential location. The Commission considers that the perception of other enterprises is not relevant in this context given that paragraph 68 RAG 2014 and paragraph 66 RAG 2022 indicate that a counterfactual scenario is credible if it is genuine and relates to the decision-making factors prevalent at the time of the aid beneficiary’s decision regarding the investment.
(182) The Commission finds that the comments and evidence provided by the interested parties did not allay the Commission’s serious doubts as to whether Türkiye was a genuine counterfactual location where the beneficiary would have invested in the absence of aid in Hungary.
5.4.1.4. Conclusion on the substantive incentive effect
(183) On the basis of its conclusion at recital (171) and its assessment at recitals (172) to (182), the Commission finds that Hungary failed to demonstrate that the substantive incentive effect of the aid in the context of a scenario 2 situation as notified by Hungary. As neither Hungary nor the other interested parties invoked a scenario 1 situation during either the preliminary examination or the formal investigation, it was not for the Commission to assess the incentive effect of the aid in the context of a scenario 1 situation (51).
(184) Since the evidence collected in the course of the preliminary examination and the formal investigation does not allay the Commission’s serious doubts concerning the substantive incentive effect of the aid, the Commission cannot conclude that the aid would be compatible with the internal market. As the presence of substantive incentive effect has not been demonstrated and this finding is, on its own, sufficient to exclude the possibility of finding the measure compatible with the internal market, it is unnecessary to determine whether the measure meets the other eligibility and compatibility criteria set out in the RAG 2014 and in the RAG 2022.
6. CONCLUSION
(185) The Commission concludes that the substantive incentive effect of the measure in favour of GKN Automotive Hungary Kft. (previously Rubin NewCo 2021 Kft.) set out in the RAG 2014 and in the RAG 2022 has not been demonstrated.
(186) This measure may not, therefore, be considered to be compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3), point (a), TFEU,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1. The State aid which Hungary is planning to implement in favour of GKN Automotive Hungary Kft. (previously Rubin NewCo 2021 Kft.), amounting to HUF 15 917,4 million (EUR 43.76 million) in discounted value is incompatible with the internal market.

2. The aid may accordingly not be implemented.

Hungary shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
This Decision is addressed to Hungary.

Council Decision (Euratom) 2024/3030 of 2 December 2024 approving the position to be taken on behalf of Euratom in the Energy Charter Conference

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3030 9.12.2024
(1) The Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’) and its Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects (‘PEEREA’) were concluded by the European Communities by means of Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom(1)and entered into force on 16 April 1998.
(2) Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA designated the Government of the Portuguese Republic as the depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. On 1 February 2024 the Portuguese Republic notified its intention to withdraw from the ECT and PEEREA. In this regard, the Government of the Portuguese Republic will cease performing its function as depositary. The withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic from the ECT and PEEREA will take effect on 2 February 2025.
(3) An amendment to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA is necessary to designate a new depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. The Contracting Parties to the ECT (‘Contracting Parties’) agreed in negotiations to add such an amendment to the modernised text of the ECT, in order to designate the Energy Charter Secretariat (‘the Secretariat’) as a new depositary. The Contracting Parties have also agreed to amend PEEREA similarly. The Contracting Parties have further agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference a new understanding with respect to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA on the roles of the Secretariat as depositary. Furthermore, given that not all Contracting Parties will apply the modernised ECT provisionally after its adoption, the Contracting Parties agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference two decisions which will designate the Secretariat as interim depositary from 2 February 2025, pending the entry into force of amendments to the ECT and PEEREA.
(4) Pursuant to Article 34 of the ECT, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to the ECT. Pursuant to Article 12 of PEEREA, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to PEEREA.
(5) The Energy Charter Conference is to adopt the proposed acts at its meeting of 3 December 2024 with respect to the ECT and by correspondence, launched on 6 November 2024 with a deadline on 30 January 2025, with respect to PEEREA. The acts to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference will be binding on Euratom.
(6) It is appropriate for Euratom not to exercise its vote at the Energy Charter Conference voting on the proposed amendments to the ECT and PEEREA, as well as on the proposed understandings and decisions. It is also appropriate to establish the position to be taken by the Member States that are Contracting Parties, acting jointly, for matters falling within Euratom’s competence. That position is without prejudice to the division of competences between Euratom and the Member States. That position complements the position laid down in Council Decision (Euratom) 2024/1645(2).
(7) The Member States that are Contracting Parties, that are present at the Energy Charter Conference or that vote by correspondence, should take a position which does not prevent the adoption or approval of the proposed amendments, understandings and decisions,
(a) not to prevent the adoption by the Energy Charter Conference of the proposed amendment to Article 49 ECT (CC 760 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(b) not to prevent the approval of the understanding with respect to Article 49 ECT on the roles of the Energy Charter Secretariat (CC 762 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(c) not to prevent the approval of a decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 49 ECT with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 814), attached to this Decision; and
(d) not to prevent the adoption by correspondence of the proposed amendment to Article 21 PEEREA and the approval of the associated understanding with respect to Article 21 PEEREA and of the decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 21 PEEREA with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 823), attached to this Decision.
Understanding 16 with respect to Article 49 in the original ECT Understanding 18 with respect to Article 49 in the ECT as amended in 1998
The “Secretariat” in Article 49 shall mean a “Secretariat” defined in Article 35. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the “Depositary” in this Treaty shall mean the “Secretariat” defined in Article 35 in the capacity of the Depositary.
1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the ECT adopted on 3 December 2024 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the ECT on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025.
2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to subparagraph (1) on 2 February 2025.’.
1. Article 21 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: replace “The Government of the Portuguese Republic” with “The Secretariat”.
2. Article 22 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: delete “Italian,”.
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 101, second paragraph thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1) The Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’) and its Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects (‘PEEREA’) were concluded by the European Communities by means of Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom (1) and entered into force on 16 April 1998.
(2) Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA designated the Government of the Portuguese Republic as the depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. On 1 February 2024 the Portuguese Republic notified its intention to withdraw from the ECT and PEEREA. In this regard, the Government of the Portuguese Republic will cease performing its function as depositary. The withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic from the ECT and PEEREA will take effect on 2 February 2025.
(3) An amendment to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA is necessary to designate a new depositary of the ECT and PEEREA. The Contracting Parties to the ECT (‘Contracting Parties’) agreed in negotiations to add such an amendment to the modernised text of the ECT, in order to designate the Energy Charter Secretariat (‘the Secretariat’) as a new depositary. The Contracting Parties have also agreed to amend PEEREA similarly. The Contracting Parties have further agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference a new understanding with respect to Article 49 of the ECT and Article 21 of PEEREA on the roles of the Secretariat as depositary. Furthermore, given that not all Contracting Parties will apply the modernised ECT provisionally after its adoption, the Contracting Parties agreed to propose for approval by the Energy Charter Conference two decisions which will designate the Secretariat as interim depositary from 2 February 2025, pending the entry into force of amendments to the ECT and PEEREA.
(4) Pursuant to Article 34 of the ECT, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to the ECT. Pursuant to Article 12 of PEEREA, the Energy Charter Conference adopts texts of amendments to PEEREA.
(5) The Energy Charter Conference is to adopt the proposed acts at its meeting of 3 December 2024 with respect to the ECT and by correspondence, launched on 6 November 2024 with a deadline on 30 January 2025, with respect to PEEREA. The acts to be adopted by the Energy Charter Conference will be binding on Euratom.
(6) It is appropriate for Euratom not to exercise its vote at the Energy Charter Conference voting on the proposed amendments to the ECT and PEEREA, as well as on the proposed understandings and decisions. It is also appropriate to establish the position to be taken by the Member States that are Contracting Parties, acting jointly, for matters falling within Euratom’s competence. That position is without prejudice to the division of competences between Euratom and the Member States. That position complements the position laid down in Council Decision (Euratom) 2024/1645 (2).
(7) The Member States that are Contracting Parties, that are present at the Energy Charter Conference or that vote by correspondence, should take a position which does not prevent the adoption or approval of the proposed amendments, understandings and decisions,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
1. In accordance with Article 36(7) of the Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’), Euratom shall not exercise its right to vote in the Energy Charter Conference voting on the proposed amendments to and understandings with respect to Article 49 ECT and Article 21 of the ECT Protocol on energy efficiency and related environmental aspects (‘PEEREA’), and on the decisions on the designation of a depositary under Article 49 ECT and Article 21 PEEREA, attached to this Decision.

2. The Member States that are Contracting Parties to the ECT shall, acting jointly, exercise their vote at the Energy Charter Conference on 3 December 2024, where they are present, or by correspondence, as the case may be, so as:
(a) not to prevent the adoption by the Energy Charter Conference of the proposed amendment to Article 49 ECT (CC 760 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(b) not to prevent the approval of the understanding with respect to Article 49 ECT on the roles of the Energy Charter Secretariat (CC 762 REV2), attached to this Decision;
(c) not to prevent the approval of a decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 49 ECT with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 814), attached to this Decision; and
(d) not to prevent the adoption by correspondence of the proposed amendment to Article 21 PEEREA and the approval of the associated understanding with respect to Article 21 PEEREA and of the decision on the designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as depositary under Article 21 PEEREA with effect from 2 February 2025 (CC 823), attached to this Decision.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Amendments

The Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects, as contained in Annex 3 to the Final Act of the European Energy Charter Conference, shall be amended as follows:
1. Article 21 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: replace “The Government of the Portuguese Republic” with “The Secretariat”.

2. Article 22 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: delete “Italian,”.

Understandings

The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopt the following understanding with respect to Article 21:
“The ‘Secretariat’ in Article 21 of this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the ‘Depositary’ in this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty in the capacity of the Depositary of this Protocol.”.

Interim Provisions

1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopted on 30 January 2025 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025.
2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to paragraph (1) on 2 February 2025.’.

1.
Proposed amendment to Article 49 ECT, included in the proposed amendments to the Energy Charter Treaty (document CC 760 REV2), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 3 September 2024
‘Article 49
Depositary
The Government of the Portuguese Republic
Secretariat shall be the Depositary of this Treaty (1).’.

2.
Proposed new understanding with respect to Article 49 on the roles of the Energy Charter Secretariat, included in the proposed changes to Understandings, Declarations and Decision (document CC 762 REV2), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 3 September 2024
‘

Understanding 16 with respect to Article 49 in the original ECT
Understanding 18 with respect to Article 49 in the ECT as amended in 1998
The “Secretariat” in Article 49 shall mean a “Secretariat” defined in Article 35. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the “Depositary” in this Treaty shall mean the “Secretariat” defined in Article 35 in the capacity of the Depositary.
’.

3.
Proposed Decision of the Energy Charter Conference on the Designation of the Energy Charter Secretariat as a Depositary under Article 49 of the Energy Charter Treaty (document CC 814), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 3 September 2024
‘35th Meeting of the Energy Charter Conference
3 December 2024

DESIGNATION OF THE ENERGY CHARTER SECRETARIAT AS A DEPOSITARY UNDER ARTICLE 49 OF THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY
The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)
Taking note of the withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic as a Contracting Party to the ECT effective on 2 February 2025,
Having regard to the notification of the Portuguese Republic of 7 March 2024 that the Government of the Portuguese Republic shall no longer perform the functions of the Depositary under Article 49 of the ECT after its withdrawal takes effect,
Recalling the amendment to Article 49 designating the Energy Charter Secretariat (Secretariat) as the Depositary of the ECT adopted by the 35th Energy Charter Conference [CC 814],
Have agreed as follows: 1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the ECT adopted on 3 December 2024 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the ECT on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025. 2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to subparagraph (1) on 2 February 2025.’.

4.
Proposed amendments to Article 21 PEEREA (document CC 823), as submitted to the Energy Charter Conference on 6 November 2024
‘AMENDMENTS TO THE ENERGY CHARTER PROTOCOL ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects,
Taking note of the withdrawal of the Portuguese Republic as a Contracting Party to the Energy Charter Treaty and the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects effective on 2 February 2025,
Having regard to the notification of the Portuguese Republic of 7 March 2024 that the Government of the Portuguese Republic shall no longer perform the functions of the Depositary under Article 49 of the Energy Charter Treaty after its withdrawal takes effect,
have agreed as follows:
Article 1
Amendments
The Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects, as contained in Annex 3 to the Final Act of the European Energy Charter Conference, shall be amended as follows: 1. Article 21 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: replace “The Government of the Portuguese Republic” with “The Secretariat”. 2. Article 22 of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects shall be amended as follows: delete “Italian,”.
Article 2
Understandings
The Contracting Parties to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopt the following understanding with respect to Article 21:
“The ‘Secretariat’ in Article 21 of this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty. For the avoidance of doubt, all references to the ‘Depositary’ in this Protocol shall mean the Secretariat established under Article 35 of the Energy Charter Treaty in the capacity of the Depositary of this Protocol.”.
Article 3
Interim Provisions 1. Pending the entry into force of the amendments to the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects adopted on 30 January 2025 for any Contracting Party, the Secretariat shall carry out the functions of the Depositary of the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects on an interim basis for each such Contracting Party as of 2 February 2025. 2. The Secretariat shall take all necessary measures to ensure the transition of the Depositary functions from the Government of the Portuguese Republic and assume these functions on an interim basis pursuant to paragraph (1) on 2 February 2025.’.

(1) Proposed new wording is underlined and the text suggested to be deleted is shown in strikethrough.

Council Decision (EU) 2024/3029 of 21 October 2024 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by the Convention on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods and within the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by the Convention on a common transit procedure as regards invitations to Georgia to accede to those Conventions

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3029 10.12.2024
(1) The Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods(1)and the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure(2)(jointly the ‘Conventions’), concluded between the European Economic Community, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation, entered into force on 1 January 1988.
(2) Georgia has expressed its wish to accede to the Conventions once it has complied with the requirements for its accession.
(3) Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Convention on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods, the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by that Convention may, by decision, adopt invitations to third countries to accede to that Convention.
(4) Pursuant to Article 15(3), point (e), of the Convention on a common transit procedure, the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by that Convention may, by decision, adopt invitations to third countries to accede to that Convention.
(5) It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the EU-CTC Joint Committees established by the Conventions, as the decisions to invite Georgia to accede to the Conventions will be binding on the Union.
(6) The Conventions will ensure efficient border crossing procedures between Georgia and the parties to the Conventions.
(7) The position of the Union within the EU-CTC Joint Committees established by the Conventions as regards the adoption of a decision inviting Georgia to accede to the Conventions should therefore be favourable and be based on the attached draft decisions.
(8) In order to facilitate Georgia’s timely accession to the Conventions, it is necessary to adopt this Decision without delay,
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1) The Convention of 20 May 1987 on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods (1) and the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (2) (jointly the ‘Conventions’), concluded between the European Economic Community, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Swiss Confederation, entered into force on 1 January 1988.
(2) Georgia has expressed its wish to accede to the Conventions once it has complied with the requirements for its accession.
(3) Pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Convention on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods, the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by that Convention may, by decision, adopt invitations to third countries to accede to that Convention.
(4) Pursuant to Article 15(3), point (e), of the Convention on a common transit procedure, the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by that Convention may, by decision, adopt invitations to third countries to accede to that Convention.
(5) It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the EU-CTC Joint Committees established by the Conventions, as the decisions to invite Georgia to accede to the Conventions will be binding on the Union.
(6) The Conventions will ensure efficient border crossing procedures between Georgia and the parties to the Conventions.
(7) The position of the Union within the EU-CTC Joint Committees established by the Conventions as regards the adoption of a decision inviting Georgia to accede to the Conventions should therefore be favourable and be based on the attached draft decisions.
(8) In order to facilitate Georgia’s timely accession to the Conventions, it is necessary to adopt this Decision without delay,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by the Convention on the simplification of formalities in trade in goods as regards the adoption of a decision inviting Georgia to accede to that Convention shall be based on the draft decision of that Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the EU-CTC Joint Committee established by the Convention on a common transit procedure as regards the adoption of a decision inviting Georgia to accede to that Convention shall be based on the draft decision of that Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
After their adoption, the decisions of the EU-CTC Joint Committees referred to in Articles 1 and 2 shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Council Decision (EU) 2024/3028 of 21 November 2024 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, with regard to a decision establishing the general requirements for proofs of origin issued electronically under Article 17(4) of Appendix A to Protocol 4 to that Agreement

January 13, 2026
Official Journalof the European Union ENL series
2024/3028 11.12.2024
(1) The Agreement on the European Economic Area (the ‘EEA Agreement’) was concluded by the Union by Decision 94/1/ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission(1)and entered into force on 1 January 1994.
(2) Pursuant to Article 93 of the EEA Agreement, the Joint Committee established under Article 92 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Joint Committee’) shall take decisions.
(3) At its next meeting, the Joint Committee is to take a decision establishing the general requirements for proofs of origin issued electronically.
(4) It is appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on the Union’s behalf within the Joint Committee as the decision of the Joint Committee will have legal effects.
(5) The Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin (the ‘Convention’) was concluded by the Union by Council Decision 2013/94/EU(2)and entered into force in relation to the Union on 1 May 2012. By Decision (EU) 2019/2198(3), the Council supported the amendment of the Convention providing for a new set of modernised and more flexible rules of origin (the ‘amendment of the Convention’). The amendment of the Convention will enter into force on 1 January 2025.
(6) At the technical meeting held in Brussels on 5 February 2020, the majority of the Contracting Parties to the Convention agreed to implement an alternative set of rules of origin based on the amendment of the Convention on a transitional, bilateral basis (the ‘Transitional rules’). The Transitional rules apply in parallel with the rules of the Convention, pending the entry into force of the amendment of the Convention.
(7) The application of the Transitional rules ensures the adaptation of the trade flows and customs practices pending the entry into force of the amendment of the Convention.
(8) Since 1 September 2021, a number of bilateral protocols on rules of origin among several Contracting Parties to the Convention(4)have entered in force, rendering the Transitional rules applicable pending the entry into force of the amendment of the Convention. As regards the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement was replaced by a new Protocol 4 by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 163/2022(5). The Transitional rules are set out in Appendix A to that new Protocol 4.
(9) The two main objectives of the Transitional rules are, firstly, to provide for less strict rules, making it easier for goods to qualify for preferential originating status and, secondly, to enable the use of proofs of origin that have been issued electronically and/or submitted electronically.
(10) The Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement have agreed to apply Article 17(4) of Appendix A to Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement as regards proofs of origin issued electronically. Therefore, a framework of general requirements for proofs of origin issued electronically should be determined.
(11) The position of the Union within the Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft decision,
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having 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,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1) The Agreement on the European Economic Area (the ‘EEA Agreement’) was concluded by the Union by Decision 94/1/ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission (1) and entered into force on 1 January 1994.
(2) Pursuant to Article 93 of the EEA Agreement, the Joint Committee established under Article 92 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Joint Committee’) shall take decisions.
(3) At its next meeting, the Joint Committee is to take a decision establishing the general requirements for proofs of origin issued electronically.
(4) It is appropriate to establish the position to be adopted on the Union’s behalf within the Joint Committee as the decision of the Joint Committee will have legal effects.
(5) The Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin (the ‘Convention’) was concluded by the Union by Council Decision 2013/94/EU (2) and entered into force in relation to the Union on 1 May 2012. By Decision (EU) 2019/2198 (3), the Council supported the amendment of the Convention providing for a new set of modernised and more flexible rules of origin (the ‘amendment of the Convention’). The amendment of the Convention will enter into force on 1 January 2025.
(6) At the technical meeting held in Brussels on 5 February 2020, the majority of the Contracting Parties to the Convention agreed to implement an alternative set of rules of origin based on the amendment of the Convention on a transitional, bilateral basis (the ‘Transitional rules’). The Transitional rules apply in parallel with the rules of the Convention, pending the entry into force of the amendment of the Convention.
(7) The application of the Transitional rules ensures the adaptation of the trade flows and customs practices pending the entry into force of the amendment of the Convention.
(8) Since 1 September 2021, a number of bilateral protocols on rules of origin among several Contracting Parties to the Convention (4) have entered in force, rendering the Transitional rules applicable pending the entry into force of the amendment of the Convention. As regards the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement was replaced by a new Protocol 4 by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 163/2022 (5). The Transitional rules are set out in Appendix A to that new Protocol 4.
(9) The two main objectives of the Transitional rules are, firstly, to provide for less strict rules, making it easier for goods to qualify for preferential originating status and, secondly, to enable the use of proofs of origin that have been issued electronically and/or submitted electronically.
(10) The Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement have agreed to apply Article 17(4) of Appendix A to Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement as regards proofs of origin issued electronically. Therefore, a framework of general requirements for proofs of origin issued electronically should be determined.
(11) The position of the Union within the Joint Committee should therefore be based on the attached draft decision,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
The position to be adopted on the Union’s behalf within the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the ‘EEA Agreement’) at its next meeting, with regard to a decision establishing the general requirements for proofs of origin issued electronically under Article 17(4) of Appendix A to Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement, shall be based on the draft decision of the Joint Committee attached to this Decision.
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption and shall expire on 31 December 2025.