Pending: 32001D0497

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,Whereas:(1) Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States are required to provide that a transfer of personal data to a third country may only take place if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection and the Member States’ laws, which comply with the other provisions of the Directive, are respected prior to the transfer.(2) However, Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC provides that Member States may authorise, subject to certain safeguards, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to third countries which do not ensure an adequate level of protection. Such safeguards may in particular result from appropriate contractual clauses.(3) Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer operation or set of data transfer operations. The Working Party on Protection of Individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under that Directive(2) has issued guidelines to aid with the assessment(3).(4) Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, which provides flexibility for an organisation wishing to transfer data to third countries, and Article 26(4), which provides for standard contractual clauses, are essential for maintaining the necessary flow of personal data between the Community and third countries without unnecessary burdens for economic operators. Those Articles are particularly important in view of the fact that the Commission is unlikely to adopt adequacy findings under Article 25(6) for more than a limited number of countries in the short or even medium term.(5) The standard contractual clauses are only one of several possibilities under Directive 95/46/EC, together with Article 25 and Article 26(1) and (2), for lawfully transferring personal data to a third country. It will be easier for organisations to transfer personal data to third countries by incorporating the standard contractual clauses in a contract. The standard contractual clauses relate only to data protection. The data exporter and the data importer are free to include any other clauses on business related issues, such as clauses on mutual assistance in cases of disputes with a data subject or a supervisory authority, which they consider as being pertinent for the contract as long as they do not contradict the standard contractual clauses.(6) This Decision should be without prejudice to national authorisations Member States may grant in accordance with national provisions implementing Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC. The circumstances of specific transfers may require that data controllers provide different safeguards within the meaning of Article 26(2). In any case, this Decision only has the effect of requiring the Member States not to refuse to recognise as providing adequate safeguards the contractual clauses described in it and does not therefore have any effect on other contractual clauses.(7) The scope of this Decision is limited to establishing that the clauses in the Annex may be used by a controller established in the Community in order to adduce sufficient safeguards within the meaning of Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC. The transfer of personal data to third countries is a processing operation in a Member State, the lawfulness of which is subject to national law. The data protection supervisory authorities of the Member States, in the exercise of their functions and powers under Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC, should remain competent to assess whether the data exporter has complied with national legislation implementing the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and, in particular, any specific rules as regards the obligation of providing information under that Directive.(8) This Decision does not cover the transfer of personal data by controllers established in the Community to recipients established outside the territory of the Community who act only as processors. Those transfers do not require the same safeguards because the processor acts exclusively on behalf of the controller. The Commission intends to address that type of transfer in a subsequent decision.(9) It is appropriate to lay down the minimum information that the parties must specify in the contract dealing with the transfer. Member States should retain the power to particularise the information the parties are required to provide. The operation of this Decision should be reviewed in the light of experience.(10) The Commission will also consider in the future whether standard contractual clauses submitted by business organisations or other interested parties offer adequate safeguards in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC.(11) While the parties should be free to agree on the substantive data protection rules to be complied with by the data importer, there are certain data protection principles which should apply in any event.(12) Data should be processed and subsequently used or further communicated only for specified purposes and should not be kept longer than necessary.(13) In accordance with Article 12 of Directive 95/46/EC, the data subject should have the right of access to all data relating to him and as appropriate to rectification, erasure or blocking of certain data.(14) Further transfers of personal data to another controller established in a third country should be permitted only subject to certain conditions, in particular to ensure that data subjects are given proper information and have the opportunity to object, or in certain cases to withold their consent.(15) In addition to assessing whether transfers to third countries are in accordance with national law, supervisory authorities should play a key role in this contractual mechanism in ensuring that personal data are adequately protected after the transfer. In specific circumstances, the supervisory authorities of the Member States should retain the power to prohibit or suspend a data transfer or a set of transfers based on the standard contractual clauses in those exceptional cases where it is established that a transfer on contractual basis is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees providing adequate protection to the data subject.(16) The standard contractual clauses should be enforceable not only by the organisations which are parties to the contract, but also by the data subjects, in particular, where the data subjects suffer damage as a consequence of a breach of the contract.(17) The governing law of the contract should be the law of the Member State in which the data exporter is established, enabling a third-party beneficiary to enforce a contract. Data subjects should be allowed to be represented by associations or other bodies if they so wish and if authorised by national law.(18) To reduce practical difficulties which data subjects could experience when trying to enforce their rights under the standard contractual clauses, the data exporter and the data importer should be jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from any violation of those provisions which are covered by the third-party beneficiary clause.(19) The Data Subject is entitled to take action and receive compensation from the Data Exporter, the Data Importer or from both for any damage resulting from any act incompatible with the obligations contained in the standard contractual clauses. Both parties may be exempted from that liability if they prove that neither of them was responsible.(20) Joint and several liability does not extend to those provisions not covered by the third-party beneficiary clause and does not need to leave one party paying for the damage resulting from the unlawful processing of the other party. Although mutual indemnification between the parties is not a requirement for the adequacy of the protection for the data subjects and may therefore be deleted, it is included in the standard contractual clauses for the sake of clarification and to avoid the need for the parties to negotiate indemnification clauses individually.(21) In the event of a dispute between the parties and the data subject which is not amicably resolved and where the data subject invokes the third-party beneficiary clause, the parties agree to provide the data subject with the choice between mediation, arbitration or litigation. The extent to which the data subject will have an effective choice will depend on the availability of reliable and recognised systems of mediation and arbitration. Mediation by the supervisory authorities of a Member State should be an option where they provide such a service.(22) The Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered an opinion on the level of protection provided under the standard contractual clauses annexed to this Decision, which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision(4).(23) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC,

Article 1
The standard contractual clauses set out in the Annex are considered as offering adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights as required by Article 26(2) of Directive 9/46/EC.

Article 2
This Decision concerns only the adequacy of protection provided by the standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data set out in the Annex. It does not affect the application of other national provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.
This Decision shall not apply to the transfer of personal data by controllers established in the Community to recipients established outside the territory of the Community who act only as processors.

Article 3
For the purposes of this Decision:
(a) the definitions in Directive 95/46/EC shall apply;
(b) “special categories of data” means the data referred to in Article 8 of that Directive;
(c) “supervisory authority” means the authority referred to in Article 28 of that Directive;
(d) “data exporter” means the controller who transfers the personal data;
(e) “data importer” means the controller who agrees to receive from the data exporter personal data for further processing in accordance with the terms of this Decision.

Article 4
1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to chapters II, III, V and VI of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in the Member States may exercise their existing powers to prohibit or suspend data flows to third countries in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in cases where:
(a) it is established that the law to which the data importer is subject imposes upon him requirements to derogate from the relevant data protection rules which go beyond the restrictions necessary in a democratic society as provided for in Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC where those requirements are likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees provided by the standard contractual clauses; or
(b) a competent authority has established that the data importer has not respected the contractual clauses; or
(c) there is a substantial likelihood that the standard contractual clauses in the Annex are not being or will not be complied with and the continuation of transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to the data subjects.
2. The prohibition or suspension pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be lifted as soon as the reasons for the prohibition or suspension no longer exist.
3. When Member States adopt measures pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, they shall without delay inform the Commission which will forward the information to the other Member States.

Article 5
The Commission shall evaluate the operation of this Decision on the basis of available information three years after its notification to the Member States. It shall submit a report on the endings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC. It shall include any evidence that could affect the evaluation concerning the adequacy of the standard contractual clauses in the Annex and any evidence that this Decision is being applied in a discriminatory way.

Article 6
This Decision shall apply from 3 September 2001.

Article 7
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 June 2001.
For the Commission
Frederik Bolkestein
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(2) The Internet address of the Working Party is:
http://www.europa.eu.intlcomm/internal_market/en/medial/dataprot/wpdocs/index.htm.
(3) WP 4 (5020/97) “First orientations on transfers of personal data to third countries working document – possible ways forward in assessing adequacy”, a discussion document adopted by the Working Party on 26 June 1997.
WP 7 (5057/97) “Judging industry self regulation: when does it make a meaningful contribution to the level of data protection in a third country?”, working document: adopted by the Working Party on 14 January 1998.
WP 9 (3005/98) “Preliminary views on the use of contractual provisions in the context of transfers of personal data to third countries”, working document: adopted by the Working Party on 22 April 1998.
WP 12: “Transfers of personal data to third countries: applying Articles 25 and 26 of the EU data protection directive”, working document adopted by the Working Party on 24 July 1998, available, in the web-working document site “europa.eu.int/comm/internal_markt/en/media.dataprot/wpdocs/wp12/en” hosted by the European Commission.
(4) Opinion No 1/2001 adopted by the Working Party on 26 January 2001 (DG MARKT 5102/00 WP 38), available in the website “Europa” hosted by the European Commission.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,Whereas:(1) Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, Member States are required to provide that a transfer of personal data to a third country may only take place if the third country in question ensures an adequate level of data protection and the Member States’ laws, which comply with the other provisions of the Directive, are respected prior to the transfer.(2) However, Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC provides that Member States may authorise, subject to certain safeguards, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to third countries which do not ensure an adequate level of protection. Such safeguards may in particular result from appropriate contractual clauses.(3) Pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC, the level of data protection should be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the data transfer operation or set of data transfer operations. The Working Party on Protection of Individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under that Directive(2) has issued guidelines to aid with the assessment(3).(4) Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC, which provides flexibility for an organisation wishing to transfer data to third countries, and Article 26(4), which provides for standard contractual clauses, are essential for maintaining the necessary flow of personal data between the Community and third countries without unnecessary burdens for economic operators. Those Articles are particularly important in view of the fact that the Commission is unlikely to adopt adequacy findings under Article 25(6) for more than a limited number of countries in the short or even medium term.(5) The standard contractual clauses are only one of several possibilities under Directive 95/46/EC, together with Article 25 and Article 26(1) and (2), for lawfully transferring personal data to a third country. It will be easier for organisations to transfer personal data to third countries by incorporating the standard contractual clauses in a contract. The standard contractual clauses relate only to data protection. The data exporter and the data importer are free to include any other clauses on business related issues, such as clauses on mutual assistance in cases of disputes with a data subject or a supervisory authority, which they consider as being pertinent for the contract as long as they do not contradict the standard contractual clauses.(6) This Decision should be without prejudice to national authorisations Member States may grant in accordance with national provisions implementing Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC. The circumstances of specific transfers may require that data controllers provide different safeguards within the meaning of Article 26(2). In any case, this Decision only has the effect of requiring the Member States not to refuse to recognise as providing adequate safeguards the contractual clauses described in it and does not therefore have any effect on other contractual clauses.(7) The scope of this Decision is limited to establishing that the clauses in the Annex may be used by a controller established in the Community in order to adduce sufficient safeguards within the meaning of Article 26(2) of Directive 95/46/EC. The transfer of personal data to third countries is a processing operation in a Member State, the lawfulness of which is subject to national law. The data protection supervisory authorities of the Member States, in the exercise of their functions and powers under Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC, should remain competent to assess whether the data exporter has complied with national legislation implementing the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC and, in particular, any specific rules as regards the obligation of providing information under that Directive.(8) This Decision does not cover the transfer of personal data by controllers established in the Community to recipients established outside the territory of the Community who act only as processors. Those transfers do not require the same safeguards because the processor acts exclusively on behalf of the controller. The Commission intends to address that type of transfer in a subsequent decision.(9) It is appropriate to lay down the minimum information that the parties must specify in the contract dealing with the transfer. Member States should retain the power to particularise the information the parties are required to provide. The operation of this Decision should be reviewed in the light of experience.(10) The Commission will also consider in the future whether standard contractual clauses submitted by business organisations or other interested parties offer adequate safeguards in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC.(11) While the parties should be free to agree on the substantive data protection rules to be complied with by the data importer, there are certain data protection principles which should apply in any event.(12) Data should be processed and subsequently used or further communicated only for specified purposes and should not be kept longer than necessary.(13) In accordance with Article 12 of Directive 95/46/EC, the data subject should have the right of access to all data relating to him and as appropriate to rectification, erasure or blocking of certain data.(14) Further transfers of personal data to another controller established in a third country should be permitted only subject to certain conditions, in particular to ensure that data subjects are given proper information and have the opportunity to object, or in certain cases to withold their consent.(15) In addition to assessing whether transfers to third countries are in accordance with national law, supervisory authorities should play a key role in this contractual mechanism in ensuring that personal data are adequately protected after the transfer. In specific circumstances, the supervisory authorities of the Member States should retain the power to prohibit or suspend a data transfer or a set of transfers based on the standard contractual clauses in those exceptional cases where it is established that a transfer on contractual basis is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees providing adequate protection to the data subject.(16) The standard contractual clauses should be enforceable not only by the organisations which are parties to the contract, but also by the data subjects, in particular, where the data subjects suffer damage as a consequence of a breach of the contract.(17) The governing law of the contract should be the law of the Member State in which the data exporter is established, enabling a third-party beneficiary to enforce a contract. Data subjects should be allowed to be represented by associations or other bodies if they so wish and if authorised by national law.(18) To reduce practical difficulties which data subjects could experience when trying to enforce their rights under the standard contractual clauses, the data exporter and the data importer should be jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from any violation of those provisions which are covered by the third-party beneficiary clause.(19) The Data Subject is entitled to take action and receive compensation from the Data Exporter, the Data Importer or from both for any damage resulting from any act incompatible with the obligations contained in the standard contractual clauses. Both parties may be exempted from that liability if they prove that neither of them was responsible.(20) Joint and several liability does not extend to those provisions not covered by the third-party beneficiary clause and does not need to leave one party paying for the damage resulting from the unlawful processing of the other party. Although mutual indemnification between the parties is not a requirement for the adequacy of the protection for the data subjects and may therefore be deleted, it is included in the standard contractual clauses for the sake of clarification and to avoid the need for the parties to negotiate indemnification clauses individually.(21) In the event of a dispute between the parties and the data subject which is not amicably resolved and where the data subject invokes the third-party beneficiary clause, the parties agree to provide the data subject with the choice between mediation, arbitration or litigation. The extent to which the data subject will have an effective choice will depend on the availability of reliable and recognised systems of mediation and arbitration. Mediation by the supervisory authorities of a Member State should be an option where they provide such a service.(22) The Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data established under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC has delivered an opinion on the level of protection provided under the standard contractual clauses annexed to this Decision, which has been taken into account in the preparation of this Decision(4).(23) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC,
The standard contractual clauses set out in the Annex are considered as offering adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights as required by Article 26(2) of Directive 9/46/EC.
This Decision concerns only the adequacy of protection provided by the standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data set out in the Annex. It does not affect the application of other national provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC that pertain to the processing of personal data within the Member States.
This Decision shall not apply to the transfer of personal data by controllers established in the Community to recipients established outside the territory of the Community who act only as processors.
For the purposes of this Decision:
(a) the definitions in Directive 95/46/EC shall apply;
(b) “special categories of data” means the data referred to in Article 8 of that Directive;
(c) “supervisory authority” means the authority referred to in Article 28 of that Directive;
(d) “data exporter” means the controller who transfers the personal data;
(e) “data importer” means the controller who agrees to receive from the data exporter personal data for further processing in accordance with the terms of this Decision.
1. Without prejudice to their powers to take action to ensure compliance with national provisions adopted pursuant to chapters II, III, V and VI of Directive 95/46/EC, the competent authorities in the Member States may exercise their existing powers to prohibit or suspend data flows to third countries in order to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data in cases where:
(a) it is established that the law to which the data importer is subject imposes upon him requirements to derogate from the relevant data protection rules which go beyond the restrictions necessary in a democratic society as provided for in Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC where those requirements are likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees provided by the standard contractual clauses; or
(b) a competent authority has established that the data importer has not respected the contractual clauses; or
(c) there is a substantial likelihood that the standard contractual clauses in the Annex are not being or will not be complied with and the continuation of transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to the data subjects.
2. The prohibition or suspension pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be lifted as soon as the reasons for the prohibition or suspension no longer exist.
3. When Member States adopt measures pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, they shall without delay inform the Commission which will forward the information to the other Member States.
The Commission shall evaluate the operation of this Decision on the basis of available information three years after its notification to the Member States. It shall submit a report on the endings to the Committee established under Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC. It shall include any evidence that could affect the evaluation concerning the adequacy of the standard contractual clauses in the Annex and any evidence that this Decision is being applied in a discriminatory way.
This Decision shall apply from 3 September 2001.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 June 2001.
For the Commission
Frederik Bolkestein
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(2) The Internet address of the Working Party is:
http://www.europa.eu.intlcomm/internal_market/en/medial/dataprot/wpdocs/index.htm.
(3) WP 4 (5020/97) “First orientations on transfers of personal data to third countries working document – possible ways forward in assessing adequacy”, a discussion document adopted by the Working Party on 26 June 1997.
WP 7 (5057/97) “Judging industry self regulation: when does it make a meaningful contribution to the level of data protection in a third country?”, working document: adopted by the Working Party on 14 January 1998.
WP 9 (3005/98) “Preliminary views on the use of contractual provisions in the context of transfers of personal data to third countries”, working document: adopted by the Working Party on 22 April 1998.
WP 12: “Transfers of personal data to third countries: applying Articles 25 and 26 of the EU data protection directive”, working document adopted by the Working Party on 24 July 1998, available, in the web-working document site “europa.eu.int/comm/internal_markt/en/media.dataprot/wpdocs/wp12/en” hosted by the European Commission.
(4) Opinion No 1/2001 adopted by the Working Party on 26 January 2001 (DG MARKT 5102/00 WP 38), available in the website “Europa” hosted by the European Commission.
>PIC FILE= “L_2001181EN.002402.TIF”>
>PIC FILE= “L_2001181EN.002501.TIF”>
>PIC FILE= “L_2001181EN.002601.TIF”>
>PIC FILE= “L_2001181EN.002701.TIF”>
to the standard contractual clauses
>PIC FILE= “L_2001181EN.002802.TIF”>
>PIC FILE= “L_2001181EN.002901.TIF”>
to the standard contractual clauses
Mandatory data protection principles referred to in the first paragraph of Clause 5(b)
These data protection principles should be read and interpreted in the light of the provisions (principles and relevant exceptions) of Directive 95/46/EC.
They shall apply subject to the mandatory requirements of the national legislation applicable to the data importer which do not go beyond what is necessary in a democratic society on the basis of one of the interests listed in Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC, that is, if they constitute a necessary measure to safeguard national security, defence, public security, the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of breaches of ethics for the regulated professions, an important economic or financial interest of the State or the protection of the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others.
1. Purpose limitation: data must be processed and subsequently used or further communicated only for the specific purposes in Appendix I to the Clauses. Data must not be kept longer than necessary for the purposes for which they are transferred.
2. Data quality and proportionality: data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. The data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are transferred and further processed.
3. Transparency: data subjects must be provided with information as to the purposes of the processing and the identity of the data controller in the third country, and other information insofar as this is necessary to ensure fair processing, unless such information has already been given by the data exporter.
4. Security and confidentiality: technical and organisational security measures must be taken by the data controller that are appropriate to the risks, such as unauthorised access, presented by the processing. Any person acting under the authority of the data controller, including a processor, must not process the data except on instructions from the controller.
5. Rights of access, rectification, erasure and blocking of data: as provided for in Article 12 of Directive 95/46/EC, the data subject must have a right of access to all data relating to him that are processed and, as appropriate, the right to the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the principles set out in this Appendix, in particular because the data are incomplete or inaccurate. He should also be able to object to the processing of the data relating to him on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation.
6. Restrictions on onwards transfers: further transfers of personal data from the data importer to another controller established in a third country not providing adequate protection or not covered by a decision adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC (onward transfer) may take place only if either:
(a) data subjects have, in the case of special categories of data, given their unambiguous consent to the onward transfer or, in other cases, have been given the opportunity to object.
The minimum information to be provided to data subjects must contain in a language understandable to them:
– the purposes of the onward transfer,
– the identification of the data exporter established in the Community,
– the categories of further recipients of the data and the countries of destination, and
– an explanation that, after the onward transfer, the data may be processed by a controller established in a country where there is not an adequate level of protection of the privacy of individuals; or
(b) the data exporter and the data importer agree to the adherence to the Clauses of another controller which thereby becomes a party to the Clauses and assumes the same obligations as the data importer.
7. Special categories of data: where data revealing racial or ehtnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union memberships and data concerning health or sex life and data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security measures are processed, additional safeguards should be in place within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC, in particular, appropriate security measures such as strong encryption for transmission or such as keeping a record of access to sensitive data.
8. Direct marketing: where data are processed for the purposes of direct marketing, effective procedures should exist allowing the data subject at any time to “opt-out” from having his data used for such purposes.
9. Automated individual decisions: data subjects are entitled not to be subject to a decision which is based soley on automated processing of data, unless other measures are taken to safeguard the individual’s legitimate interests as provided for in Article 15(2) of Directive 95/46/EC. Where the purpose of the transfer is the taking of an automated decision as referred to in Article 15 of Directive 95/46/EC, which produces legal effects concerning the individual or significantly affects him and which is based solely on automated processing of data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc., the individual should have the right to know the reasoning for this decision.
to the standard contractual clauses
Mandatory data protection principles referred to in the second paragraph of Clause 5(b)
1. Purpose limitation: data must be processed and subsequently used or further communicated only for the specific purposes in Appendix I to the Clauses. Data must not be kept longer than necessary for the purposes for which they are transferred.
2. Rights of access, rectification, erasure and blocking of data: as provided for in Article 12 of Directive 95/46/EC, the data subject must have a right of access to all data relating to him that are processed and, as appropriate, the right to the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the principles set out in this Appendix, in particular because the data is incomplete or inaccurate. He should also be able to object to the processing of the data relating to him on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation.
3. Restrictions on onward transfers: further transfers of personal data from the data importer to another controller established in a third country not providing adequate protection or not covered by a decision adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC (onward transfer) may take place only if either:
(a) data subjects have, in the case of special categories of data, given their unambiguous consent to the onward transfer, or, in other cases, have been given the opportunity to object.
The minimum information to be provided to data subjects must contain in a language understandable to them:
– the purposes of the onward transfer,
– the identification of the data exporter established in the Community,
– the categories of further recipients of the data and the countries of destination, and
– an explanation that, after the onward transfer, the data may be processed by a controller established in a country where there is not an adequate level of protection of the privacy of indidividuals; or
(b) the data exporter and the data importer agree to the adherence to the Clauses of another controller which thereby becomes a party to the Clauses and assumes the same obligations as the data importer.

Pending: 32001D0488

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,Whereas:(1) The foot-and-mouth disease situation in certain parts of the Community is liable to endanger the herds in other parts of the Community in view of the placing on the market and trade in live biungulate animals.(2) All Member States have implemented the restrictions to the movement of animals of susceptible species laid down in Commission Decision 2001/327/EC of 24 April 2001 concerning restrictions to the movement of animals of susceptible species with regard to foot-and-mouth disease and repealing Decision 2001/263/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/416/EC(4).(3) It appears also appropriate to maintain for an additional period of time certain restrictions to the movement of sheep and goats within the Community.(4) The animal health conditions for trade in ovine and caprine animals are laid down in Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-community trade in ovine and caprine animals(5), as last amended by Directive 2001/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6).(5) Council Directive 92/102/EEC(7), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, concerns the identification and registration of animals.(6) Council Directive 85/511/EEC(8), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, introduced Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease.(7) It appears appropriate to further restrict the movement of animals through staging points and allow such movement only for animals of susceptible species for breeding and in the case of bovine and porcine animals also for production, taking into account the requirements for health and identification standards applicable to intra-Community trade in such animals.(8) The welfare conditions for transport of animals within the Community are laid down in Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(9), as last amended by Directive 95/29/EC(10).(9) Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerns Community criteria for staging points and amends the route plan referred to in the Annex to Directive 91/628/EEC(11).(10) Commission Decision 93/444/EEC(12) concerns detailed rules governing intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products intended for exportation to third countries.(11) In the light of the disease evolution and the findings of the epidemiological investigations carried out in the affected Member States in close cooperation with the other Member States, it is however also possible to further ease certain restrictions established under Decision 2001/327/EC.(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

Article 1
Decision 2001/327/EC is amended as follows:
1. In Article 2 paragraph 3 is deleted and paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: “1. Without prejudice to Directive 91/68/EEC, Member States other than the United Kingdom shall ensure that trade between Member States in sheep and goats for breeding, fattening and slaughter is subject to the following additional conditions:
(a) in the case of animals for breeding and fattening, the animals have remained on a single holding of origin for a period of at least 30 days prior to loading, or since birth in the holding of origin where the animals are less than 30 days old;
(b) in the case of animals for breeding and fattening, no sheep and goats have been introduced into that holding during the last 21 days of the residence period referred to in subparagraph (a), and no animal of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease imported from a third country has been introduced into the holding during the 30 days prior to dispatch from the holding of origin, unless the imported animal has been completely isolated from all other animals on the holding;
(c) in no case sheep and goats must be outside their holding of origin for more than six days before arriving in the certified holding of destination in another Member State.
In the case of transport by ship, the time referred to in the first subparagraph is prolonged by the time of the sea voyage.
Where animals for breeding transit a staging point in accordance with the provisions in Article 2a, the time referred to in the first subparagraph is prolonged by the resting time spent in the staging point;
(d) in the case of sheep and goats transiting through an approved assembly centre in the Member State of origin, the period during which the assembly of these animals takes place outside the holding of origin must ensure that the condition in subparagraph (c) can be met. The animals shall only transit one single approved assembly centre in the Member State of origin;
(e) sheep and goats for slaughter may in addition to the provisions in subparagraph (d) transit through one single approved assembly centre in one other Member State of transit before being consigned to the Member State of destination, subject to the conditions in subparagraph (c);
(f) notwithstanding the provisions in Article 12 of Directive 91/628/EEC, the animals must be accompanied by an animal health certificate in accordance with the models provided for in the respective Annexes of that Directive which must in addition bear the following words:
‘Animals in accordance with Commission Decision 2001/327/EC’;
(g) intra-Community trade in sheep and goats requires advance notification of the transport by the competent veterinary authorities of the place of departure to the central competent veterinary authorities in the Member State of destination and any Member State of transit. This notification shall be dispatched not later than 24 hours prior to departure of the transport.
2. In the case of intra-Community trade in animals of species susceptible to foot and mouth disease dispatched from a region in a Member State in which restrictions in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 85/511/EEC have been applied during the three months prior to certification, the transport is subject to authorisation by the competent authorities of the place of departure and notification to the central veterinary authorities of the Member State of destination. This notification shall be dispatched not later than 24 hours prior to departure of the transport.”
2. Article 2a is replaced by the following: “Article 2a
1. Without prejudice to Article 3(1)(aa), second indent of Council Directive 91/628/EEC, Member States shall ensure that animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease certified for intra-Community trade are not moved through staging points established and approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1255/97.
2. Derogating from the provisions in paragraph 1, the movement through staging points may be authorised for intra-Community trade in animals of the bovine and porcine species for breeding and production and in animals of the ovine and caprine species for breeding under the conditions detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5.
3. Derogating from the provisions in paragraph 2, the transport of bovine and porcine animals accompanied in application of Commission Decision 93/444/EEC, and in particular Article 2(1) thereof, by an animal health certificate for animals for slaughter in accordance with Directive 64/432/EEC, may on their way to a third country transit a staging point referred to in paragraph 1, subject to the conditions in paragraph 5.
4. The consignor must provide evidence and declare in writing to the certifying veterinary authorities that suitable arrangements have been made to ensure that the staging point situated within the Community receives at the same time only animals of the same species and of the same certified health status. The route plan is supplemented by the declaration of the consignor.
5. The staging point indicated in the route plan accompanying the consignment is notified by the certifying veterinary authorities to the central veterinary authorities in the Member State of destination and any Member State of transit. This notification shall be dispatched not later than 24 hours prior to departure of the transport.”
3. The date in Article 4 is replaced by “30 September 2001”.

Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.
(3) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001, p. 12.
(4) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 40.
(5) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19.
(6) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 41.
(7) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.
(8) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985, p. 11.
(9) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(10) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.
(11) OJ L 174, 2.7.1997, p. 1.
(12) OJ L 208, 19.8.1993, p. 34.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,Whereas:(1) The foot-and-mouth disease situation in certain parts of the Community is liable to endanger the herds in other parts of the Community in view of the placing on the market and trade in live biungulate animals.(2) All Member States have implemented the restrictions to the movement of animals of susceptible species laid down in Commission Decision 2001/327/EC of 24 April 2001 concerning restrictions to the movement of animals of susceptible species with regard to foot-and-mouth disease and repealing Decision 2001/263/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/416/EC(4).(3) It appears also appropriate to maintain for an additional period of time certain restrictions to the movement of sheep and goats within the Community.(4) The animal health conditions for trade in ovine and caprine animals are laid down in Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-community trade in ovine and caprine animals(5), as last amended by Directive 2001/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6).(5) Council Directive 92/102/EEC(7), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, concerns the identification and registration of animals.(6) Council Directive 85/511/EEC(8), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, introduced Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease.(7) It appears appropriate to further restrict the movement of animals through staging points and allow such movement only for animals of susceptible species for breeding and in the case of bovine and porcine animals also for production, taking into account the requirements for health and identification standards applicable to intra-Community trade in such animals.(8) The welfare conditions for transport of animals within the Community are laid down in Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC(9), as last amended by Directive 95/29/EC(10).(9) Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerns Community criteria for staging points and amends the route plan referred to in the Annex to Directive 91/628/EEC(11).(10) Commission Decision 93/444/EEC(12) concerns detailed rules governing intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products intended for exportation to third countries.(11) In the light of the disease evolution and the findings of the epidemiological investigations carried out in the affected Member States in close cooperation with the other Member States, it is however also possible to further ease certain restrictions established under Decision 2001/327/EC.(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
Decision 2001/327/EC is amended as follows:
1. In Article 2 paragraph 3 is deleted and paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: “1. Without prejudice to Directive 91/68/EEC, Member States other than the United Kingdom shall ensure that trade between Member States in sheep and goats for breeding, fattening and slaughter is subject to the following additional conditions:
(a) in the case of animals for breeding and fattening, the animals have remained on a single holding of origin for a period of at least 30 days prior to loading, or since birth in the holding of origin where the animals are less than 30 days old;
(b) in the case of animals for breeding and fattening, no sheep and goats have been introduced into that holding during the last 21 days of the residence period referred to in subparagraph (a), and no animal of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease imported from a third country has been introduced into the holding during the 30 days prior to dispatch from the holding of origin, unless the imported animal has been completely isolated from all other animals on the holding;
(c) in no case sheep and goats must be outside their holding of origin for more than six days before arriving in the certified holding of destination in another Member State.
In the case of transport by ship, the time referred to in the first subparagraph is prolonged by the time of the sea voyage.
Where animals for breeding transit a staging point in accordance with the provisions in Article 2a, the time referred to in the first subparagraph is prolonged by the resting time spent in the staging point;
(d) in the case of sheep and goats transiting through an approved assembly centre in the Member State of origin, the period during which the assembly of these animals takes place outside the holding of origin must ensure that the condition in subparagraph (c) can be met. The animals shall only transit one single approved assembly centre in the Member State of origin;
(e) sheep and goats for slaughter may in addition to the provisions in subparagraph (d) transit through one single approved assembly centre in one other Member State of transit before being consigned to the Member State of destination, subject to the conditions in subparagraph (c);
(f) notwithstanding the provisions in Article 12 of Directive 91/628/EEC, the animals must be accompanied by an animal health certificate in accordance with the models provided for in the respective Annexes of that Directive which must in addition bear the following words:
‘Animals in accordance with Commission Decision 2001/327/EC’;
(g) intra-Community trade in sheep and goats requires advance notification of the transport by the competent veterinary authorities of the place of departure to the central competent veterinary authorities in the Member State of destination and any Member State of transit. This notification shall be dispatched not later than 24 hours prior to departure of the transport.
2. In the case of intra-Community trade in animals of species susceptible to foot and mouth disease dispatched from a region in a Member State in which restrictions in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 85/511/EEC have been applied during the three months prior to certification, the transport is subject to authorisation by the competent authorities of the place of departure and notification to the central veterinary authorities of the Member State of destination. This notification shall be dispatched not later than 24 hours prior to departure of the transport.”
2. Article 2a is replaced by the following: “Article 2a
1. Without prejudice to Article 3(1)(aa), second indent of Council Directive 91/628/EEC, Member States shall ensure that animals of species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease certified for intra-Community trade are not moved through staging points established and approved in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1255/97.
2. Derogating from the provisions in paragraph 1, the movement through staging points may be authorised for intra-Community trade in animals of the bovine and porcine species for breeding and production and in animals of the ovine and caprine species for breeding under the conditions detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5.
3. Derogating from the provisions in paragraph 2, the transport of bovine and porcine animals accompanied in application of Commission Decision 93/444/EEC, and in particular Article 2(1) thereof, by an animal health certificate for animals for slaughter in accordance with Directive 64/432/EEC, may on their way to a third country transit a staging point referred to in paragraph 1, subject to the conditions in paragraph 5.
4. The consignor must provide evidence and declare in writing to the certifying veterinary authorities that suitable arrangements have been made to ensure that the staging point situated within the Community receives at the same time only animals of the same species and of the same certified health status. The route plan is supplemented by the declaration of the consignor.
5. The staging point indicated in the route plan accompanying the consignment is notified by the certifying veterinary authorities to the central veterinary authorities in the Member State of destination and any Member State of transit. This notification shall be dispatched not later than 24 hours prior to departure of the transport.”
3. The date in Article 4 is replaced by “30 September 2001”.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 June 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.
(3) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001, p. 12.
(4) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 40.
(5) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19.
(6) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 41.
(7) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.
(8) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985, p. 11.
(9) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(10) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.
(11) OJ L 174, 2.7.1997, p. 1.
(12) OJ L 208, 19.8.1993, p. 34.

Pending: 32001D0468

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1365/2000(2), and in particular Article 4(5) thereof,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcasses(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93(4), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,Whereas:(1) Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 provides that the grading of pig carcasses must be determined by estimating the content of lean meat in accordance with statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcass. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. This tolerance has been defined in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEEC) No 2967/85 of 24 October 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Community scale for grading pig carcasses(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3127/94(6).(2) The Commission, by Decision 89/53/EEC(7), as amended by Decision 89/602/EEC(8), has authorised different methods for grading pig carcasses in Italy.(3) The Italian Government has requested the Commission to authorise the use of only two methods for calculating the lean meat content of carcasses in Italy: “Fat-O-Meater” and “Hennessy Grading Probe”. The information required pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85 has been submitted. The evaluation of the request has shown that the conditions for authorising the said methods of grading are fulfilled.(4) Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 lays down that Member States may be authorised to provide for a presentation of pig carcasses different to the standard presentations defined in the same Article where commercial practice or technical requirements so warrant.(5) In Italy the traditions in carcass presentation, and consequently, commercial practice, necessitate that carcasses can be presented with the flare fat and/or kidneys and/or diaphragm. This should be taken into account in adjusting to the weight for standard presentation. A uniform Italian carcass presentation should be adopted before end of 2003.(6) For the sake of clarity, a new decision should be adopted. Decision 89/53/EEC should therefore be repealed.(7) No adjustments to grading methods may be authorised except by means of a Commission decision adopted in the light of experience gained.(8) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

Article 1
The use of the following methods is hereby authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 in Italy:
– the apparatus termed “Fat-O-Meater” (FOM) and assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex,
– the apparatus termed “Hennessy Grading Probe” and assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex.

Article 2
Notwithstanding the standard presentation referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84, pig carcasses may be presented with kidnyeys and/or diaphragm and/or flare fat during weighing and grading. In order to establish quotations for pig carcass on a comparable basis, the recorded hot weight shall be corrected by the following equation:
>PIC FILE= “L_2001163EN.003201.TIF”>
Y= carcass weight as defined by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93
X= carcass weight when being weighed
a1 and a2= correction percentages, respectively, left or removed from the carcass:
– for kidneys, equivalent to 0,30 %
– for diaphragm, equivalent to 0,38 %
– for flare fat, equivalent to:
– 1,4 % (carcass weight from 70 to 79,9 kg),
– 1,8 % (carcass weight from 80 to 89,9 kg),
– 1,9 % (carcass weight from 90 to 99,9 kg),
– 2,4 % (carcass weight from 100 to 110 kg),
– 1,6 % (carcass weight from 110,1 to 120 kg),
– 2,3 % (carcass weight from 120,1 to 130 kg),
– 2,8 % (carcass weight from 130,1 to 140 kg),
– 3,4 % (carcass weight from 140,1 to 150 kg),
– 3,6 % (carcass weight more than 150 kg).
However, Italy shall adopt a uniform carcass presentation of pig carcasses before 31 December 2003.

Article 3
Modifications of assessment methods (apparatus, measuring points and formulae) shall not be authorised.

Article 4
Decision 89/53/EEC is repealed.

Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 8 June 2001.
For the Commission
Franz Fischler
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 156, 29.6.2000, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 301, 20.11.1984, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 320, 22.12.1993, p. 5.
(5) OJ L 285, 25.10.1985, p. 39.
(6) OJ L 330, 21.12.1994, p. 43.
(7) OJ L 20, 25.1.1989, p. 35.
(8) OJ L 347, 28.11.1989, p. 33.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1365/2000(2), and in particular Article 4(5) thereof,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcasses(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93(4), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,Whereas:(1) Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 provides that the grading of pig carcasses must be determined by estimating the content of lean meat in accordance with statistically proven assessment methods based on the physical measurement of one or more anatomical parts of the pig carcass. The authorisation of grading methods is subject to compliance with a maximum tolerance for statistical error in assessment. This tolerance has been defined in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEEC) No 2967/85 of 24 October 1985 laying down detailed rules for the application of the Community scale for grading pig carcasses(5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 3127/94(6).(2) The Commission, by Decision 89/53/EEC(7), as amended by Decision 89/602/EEC(8), has authorised different methods for grading pig carcasses in Italy.(3) The Italian Government has requested the Commission to authorise the use of only two methods for calculating the lean meat content of carcasses in Italy: “Fat-O-Meater” and “Hennessy Grading Probe”. The information required pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2967/85 has been submitted. The evaluation of the request has shown that the conditions for authorising the said methods of grading are fulfilled.(4) Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 lays down that Member States may be authorised to provide for a presentation of pig carcasses different to the standard presentations defined in the same Article where commercial practice or technical requirements so warrant.(5) In Italy the traditions in carcass presentation, and consequently, commercial practice, necessitate that carcasses can be presented with the flare fat and/or kidneys and/or diaphragm. This should be taken into account in adjusting to the weight for standard presentation. A uniform Italian carcass presentation should be adopted before end of 2003.(6) For the sake of clarity, a new decision should be adopted. Decision 89/53/EEC should therefore be repealed.(7) No adjustments to grading methods may be authorised except by means of a Commission decision adopted in the light of experience gained.(8) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,
The use of the following methods is hereby authorised for grading pig carcasses pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 in Italy:
– the apparatus termed “Fat-O-Meater” (FOM) and assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 1 of the Annex,
– the apparatus termed “Hennessy Grading Probe” and assessment methods related thereto, details of which are given in Part 2 of the Annex.
Notwithstanding the standard presentation referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84, pig carcasses may be presented with kidnyeys and/or diaphragm and/or flare fat during weighing and grading. In order to establish quotations for pig carcass on a comparable basis, the recorded hot weight shall be corrected by the following equation:
>PIC FILE= “L_2001163EN.003201.TIF”>
Y= carcass weight as defined by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93
X= carcass weight when being weighed
a1 and a2= correction percentages, respectively, left or removed from the carcass:
– for kidneys, equivalent to 0,30 %
– for diaphragm, equivalent to 0,38 %
– for flare fat, equivalent to:
– 1,4 % (carcass weight from 70 to 79,9 kg),
– 1,8 % (carcass weight from 80 to 89,9 kg),
– 1,9 % (carcass weight from 90 to 99,9 kg),
– 2,4 % (carcass weight from 100 to 110 kg),
– 1,6 % (carcass weight from 110,1 to 120 kg),
– 2,3 % (carcass weight from 120,1 to 130 kg),
– 2,8 % (carcass weight from 130,1 to 140 kg),
– 3,4 % (carcass weight from 140,1 to 150 kg),
– 3,6 % (carcass weight more than 150 kg).
However, Italy shall adopt a uniform carcass presentation of pig carcasses before 31 December 2003.
Modifications of assessment methods (apparatus, measuring points and formulae) shall not be authorised.
Decision 89/53/EEC is repealed.
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels, 8 June 2001.
For the Commission
Franz Fischler
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 156, 29.6.2000, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 301, 20.11.1984, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 320, 22.12.1993, p. 5.
(5) OJ L 285, 25.10.1985, p. 39.
(6) OJ L 330, 21.12.1994, p. 43.
(7) OJ L 20, 25.1.1989, p. 35.
(8) OJ L 347, 28.11.1989, p. 33.
Methods for grading pig carcasses in Italy
Fat-O-Meater (FOM)
1. Grading of pig carcasses shall be carried out by means of the apparatus termed “Fat-O-Meater” (FOM).
2. The apparatus shall be equipped with a probe of 6 mm diameter containing a photodiode of the Siemens SFH 950 type and a photodetector (type SFH 960), having an operating distance of between 5 and 115 mm. The results of the measurements are converted into estimated lean meat content by means of a computer.
3. The lean meat content of the carcass shall be calculated according to one of the following two formulae:
(a) carcasses weighing between 70 and 110 kg
y= 53,630814 – 0,436960 x1 + 0,043434 x2 + 1,589929 x3
(b) carcasses weighing between 110,1 and 155 kg
y= 45,371951 – 0,221432 x1 + 0,055939 x2 + 2,554674 x3
y= the estimated percentage of lean meat in the carcass,
x1= the thickness of back fat (including rind) in millimetres, measured at 8 cm off the midline of the carcass at the level placed between the third and fourth last ribs,
x2= the thickness of the longissimus dorsi muscle, measured at the same time and in the same place as x1,
Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 7)
1. Grading of pig carcasses is carried out, by means of the apparatus called “Hennessy grading probe” (HGP 7).
2. The apparatus shall be equipped with a probe of 5,95 mm diameter (and have abutting 6,3 mm of blade on either side of the probe at its head) containing a photodiode (Siemens LED of the type LYU 260-EO and photodetector of the type 58 MR) and having an operating distance of between 0 and 120 mm. The results of the measurements shall be transformed in terms of estimated lean meat content by means of the HGP 7 itself as well as a computer linked to it.
3. The lean meat content of the carcass shall be calculated according to one of the following two formulae:
(a) carcasses weighing between 70 and 110 kg
y= 50,933698 – 0,312169 x1 + 0,037779 x2 + 2,411151 x3
(b) carcasses weighing between 110,1 and 155 kg
y= 44,992620 – 0,191001 x1 + 0,042516 x2 + 3,181847 x3
y= the estimated percentage of lean meat in the carcass,
x1= the thickness of back fat (including rind) in millimetres, measured at 8 cm off the midline of the carcass at the level placed between the third and fourth last ribs,
x2= the thickness of the longissimus dorsi muscle, measured at the same time and in the same place as x1,

Pending: 32001D0433

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 2000/75/EC(1) laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue and in particular Article 9(2),Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(2), as last amended by Council Decision 2001/12/EC(3), and in particular Article 3(3) and (5),Whereas:(1) In a first stage, Italian authorities decided on the basis of the epidemiological situation, to perform a vaccination campaign in Sicily, Calabria and Basilicate.(2) Originally the need for this campaign was of 1700000 doses of monovalent type 2 vaccine, and Decision 2001/141/EC(4) has been adopted to provide Italy with the necessary vaccine.(3) On the 5 of March Italy notified to the Commission the existence of serotype 9 in eastern Calabria and this new epidemiological situation makes that the need of vaccine in this region is now of 1200000 doses of bivalent vaccine (2 and 9) and 500000 doses of monovalent type 2.(4) Furthermore, on 12 February 2001, Italian authorities informed the Commission of their intention to extend the vaccination campaign to Sardinia in spring 2001.(5) The amount of vaccine necessary to carry out this campaign in Sardinia is 3000000 doses of monovalent bluetongue vaccine serotype 2.(6) The total need of Italy to perform these campaigns is therefore of 3500000 doses of monovalent (2) and 1200000 bivalent (2 and 9) vaccine.(7) 2400000 doses of monovalent (2) vaccine have been already provided to Italy by the Commission, 1700000 initially intended to be used in Calabria, in the frame of Decision 2001/141/CE, and 700000 from the Community bank of 750000 doses established in agreement with Commission Decision 2001/69/EC(5), the remaining 50000 doses of which have been sent to Corsica (France).(8) Due to the emergency, Italian authorities have directly purchased 1100000 doses of monovalent (2) and 1200000 doses of bivalent (2 and 9) vaccine, with the agreement of the Commission.(9) The Commission furthermore authorises the Italian authorities to set up a security bank of 100000 doses of monovalent (2) and 300000 doses of bivalent (2 and 9) vaccine, and to purchase directly the vaccine at this end.(10) At this stage the Italian needs for carrying out the campaign are covered.(11) Nevertheless, the Community bank has to be restocked with 1000000 doses of monovalent (2) vaccine, in order to face a possible extension of the outbreaks in new regions.(12) No bluetongue vaccine is produced by the pharmaceutical industry based in the Community, the Onderstepoort laboratory in South Africa being the only laboratory wich may produce that type of monovalent vaccine (attenuated vaccine) with the serotype 2.(13) Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999(6), veterinary and plant health measures undertaken in accordance with Community rules shall be financed under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 8 and 9 of that Regulation apply.(14) The financial contribution from the Community should only be granted if the actions planned are carried out efficiently, and the authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down.(15) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1The Community bank of bluetongue vaccine serotype 2 shall be restocked with 1000000 doses of vaccine.Article 2The maximum cost of the measure referred to in

Article 1
The Community bank of bluetongue vaccine serotype 2 shall be restocked with 1000000 doses of vaccine.

Article 2
The maximum cost of the measure referred to in Article 1 shall be EUR 100000.

Article 3
The Director General for Health and Consumer Protection shall be authorised to make arrangements with Onderstepoort laboratory in South Africa for the purchase, storage and air freight to a Member State, of 1000000 doses of monovalent bluetongue vaccine (serotype 2).

Article 4
Italy will implement in spring 2001 a vaccination campaign against bluetongue in Sardinia and 1200000 doses of the monovalent (2) vaccine initially provided to perform the vaccination in Calabria in the frame of Decision 2001/141/CE will be affected to this campaign.

Article 5
The Commission may carry out on the spot checks in Italy in collaboration with the competent national authorities to ensure that the program referred to in article 4 has been implemented.
The Commission shall inform the Member States of the outcome of these checks.

Article 6
The financial contribution of the Community for the program referred to under Article 4 shall be granted subject to:
(a) bringing into force by 1 April 2001 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the implementation of the programme,
(b) forwarding a final report by 1 August 2001 at the latest on the technical execution of the programme, accompanied by justifying evidence as to the costs incurred and the results attained,
(c) implementing the programme efficiently, and respecting Community veterinary legislation.

Article 7
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 May 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 74.
(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 3, 6.1.2001, p. 27.
(4) OJ L 50, 21.2.2001, p. 23.
(5) OJ L 23, 25.1.2001, p. 32.
(6) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 2000/75/EC(1) laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue and in particular Article 9(2),Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(2), as last amended by Council Decision 2001/12/EC(3), and in particular Article 3(3) and (5),Whereas:(1) In a first stage, Italian authorities decided on the basis of the epidemiological situation, to perform a vaccination campaign in Sicily, Calabria and Basilicate.(2) Originally the need for this campaign was of 1700000 doses of monovalent type 2 vaccine, and Decision 2001/141/EC(4) has been adopted to provide Italy with the necessary vaccine.(3) On the 5 of March Italy notified to the Commission the existence of serotype 9 in eastern Calabria and this new epidemiological situation makes that the need of vaccine in this region is now of 1200000 doses of bivalent vaccine (2 and 9) and 500000 doses of monovalent type 2.(4) Furthermore, on 12 February 2001, Italian authorities informed the Commission of their intention to extend the vaccination campaign to Sardinia in spring 2001.(5) The amount of vaccine necessary to carry out this campaign in Sardinia is 3000000 doses of monovalent bluetongue vaccine serotype 2.(6) The total need of Italy to perform these campaigns is therefore of 3500000 doses of monovalent (2) and 1200000 bivalent (2 and 9) vaccine.(7) 2400000 doses of monovalent (2) vaccine have been already provided to Italy by the Commission, 1700000 initially intended to be used in Calabria, in the frame of Decision 2001/141/CE, and 700000 from the Community bank of 750000 doses established in agreement with Commission Decision 2001/69/EC(5), the remaining 50000 doses of which have been sent to Corsica (France).(8) Due to the emergency, Italian authorities have directly purchased 1100000 doses of monovalent (2) and 1200000 doses of bivalent (2 and 9) vaccine, with the agreement of the Commission.(9) The Commission furthermore authorises the Italian authorities to set up a security bank of 100000 doses of monovalent (2) and 300000 doses of bivalent (2 and 9) vaccine, and to purchase directly the vaccine at this end.(10) At this stage the Italian needs for carrying out the campaign are covered.(11) Nevertheless, the Community bank has to be restocked with 1000000 doses of monovalent (2) vaccine, in order to face a possible extension of the outbreaks in new regions.(12) No bluetongue vaccine is produced by the pharmaceutical industry based in the Community, the Onderstepoort laboratory in South Africa being the only laboratory wich may produce that type of monovalent vaccine (attenuated vaccine) with the serotype 2.(13) Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999(6), veterinary and plant health measures undertaken in accordance with Community rules shall be financed under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. For financial control purposes, Articles 8 and 9 of that Regulation apply.(14) The financial contribution from the Community should only be granted if the actions planned are carried out efficiently, and the authorities supply all the necessary information within the time limits laid down.(15) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1The Community bank of bluetongue vaccine serotype 2 shall be restocked with 1000000 doses of vaccine.Article 2The maximum cost of the measure referred to in
The Community bank of bluetongue vaccine serotype 2 shall be restocked with 1000000 doses of vaccine.
The maximum cost of the measure referred to in Article 1 shall be EUR 100000.
The Director General for Health and Consumer Protection shall be authorised to make arrangements with Onderstepoort laboratory in South Africa for the purchase, storage and air freight to a Member State, of 1000000 doses of monovalent bluetongue vaccine (serotype 2).
Italy will implement in spring 2001 a vaccination campaign against bluetongue in Sardinia and 1200000 doses of the monovalent (2) vaccine initially provided to perform the vaccination in Calabria in the frame of Decision 2001/141/CE will be affected to this campaign.
The Commission may carry out on the spot checks in Italy in collaboration with the competent national authorities to ensure that the program referred to in article 4 has been implemented.
The Commission shall inform the Member States of the outcome of these checks.
The financial contribution of the Community for the program referred to under Article 4 shall be granted subject to:
(a) bringing into force by 1 April 2001 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the implementation of the programme,
(b) forwarding a final report by 1 August 2001 at the latest on the technical execution of the programme, accompanied by justifying evidence as to the costs incurred and the results attained,
(c) implementing the programme efficiently, and respecting Community veterinary legislation.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 May 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 74.
(2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 3, 6.1.2001, p. 27.
(4) OJ L 50, 21.2.2001, p. 23.
(5) OJ L 23, 25.1.2001, p. 32.
(6) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

Pending: 32001D0388

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC, of 12 December 1972, on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat, or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Articles 14 and 22 thereof,Whereas:(1) The animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Argentina are laid down by Commission Decision 93/402/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/325/EC(4).(2) Imports of fresh meat must take into account the different epidemiological situations in the countries concerned, and indeed in the different parts of their territories.(3) The responsible veterinary authorities of the concerned countries must confirm that their countries or regions have for at least 12 months been free from rinderpest, and foot-and-mouth disease, furthermore, the responsible authorities of the concerned countries must undertake to notify the Commission and the Member States within 24 hours, by fax, telex or telegram of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or an alteration in the vaccination policy against them.(4) On 23 April 2001 the competent authorities of Uruguay confirmed outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the department of Soriano. Further outbreaks of disease have been reported in other regions and emergency vaccination is being carried out.(5) The competent authorities of Uruguay suspended certification of fresh meat from susceptible species to the EU on 23 April 2001 until the situation became clearer.(6) The disease has spread to significant number of regions and the competent authorities of Uruguay have introduced a programme of vaccination of bovine animals in the whole country which will be completed by 24 May 2001.(7) While it is necessary to continue to support the suspension of imports of fresh meat provided for by the Uruguayan authorities it is possible to allow imports from Uruguay of boned meat and offal canalised for treatment, produced in conformity with the requirements laid down in Decision 93/402/EEC, produced on or before 23 April 2001. For consignments of bone-in fresh meat and offal for direct human consumption Member States shall not allow these consignments to be imported except for those produced and certified on or before 23 March 2001.(8) Provided the Uruguayan authorities provide information on the completion of their vaccination programme and the disease is under control the Decision will be reviewed with the objective of recommencing imports of boned fresh meat 30 days after the completion date of the vaccination.(9) Decision 93/402/EEC must be amended accordingly.(10) The measures adopted in the present Decision will be reviewed in the light of the evolution of the situation.(11) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

Article 1
Decision 93/402/EEC is amended as follows:

Article 2
1. Member States shall authorise imports of:
(a) any fresh meat from Uruguay, produced on or before 23 March 2001, and certified in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 93/402/EEC;
(b) boned fresh meat and offal canalised for treatment from Uruguay, produced after 23 March 2001 up to 23 April 2001, and certified in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 93/402/EEC.
2. Consignments of bone-in fresh meat and offal for human consumption other than that referred to in paragraph 1(b), produced after 23 March 2001 shall not be imported into the Community.

Article 3
This Decision will be reviewed in the light of the outcome of the vaccination campaign to be completed by 24 May 2001.

Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 May 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 179, 22.7.1993, p. 11.
(4) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001, p. 7.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC, of 12 December 1972, on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat, or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Articles 14 and 22 thereof,Whereas:(1) The animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Argentina are laid down by Commission Decision 93/402/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/325/EC(4).(2) Imports of fresh meat must take into account the different epidemiological situations in the countries concerned, and indeed in the different parts of their territories.(3) The responsible veterinary authorities of the concerned countries must confirm that their countries or regions have for at least 12 months been free from rinderpest, and foot-and-mouth disease, furthermore, the responsible authorities of the concerned countries must undertake to notify the Commission and the Member States within 24 hours, by fax, telex or telegram of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or an alteration in the vaccination policy against them.(4) On 23 April 2001 the competent authorities of Uruguay confirmed outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the department of Soriano. Further outbreaks of disease have been reported in other regions and emergency vaccination is being carried out.(5) The competent authorities of Uruguay suspended certification of fresh meat from susceptible species to the EU on 23 April 2001 until the situation became clearer.(6) The disease has spread to significant number of regions and the competent authorities of Uruguay have introduced a programme of vaccination of bovine animals in the whole country which will be completed by 24 May 2001.(7) While it is necessary to continue to support the suspension of imports of fresh meat provided for by the Uruguayan authorities it is possible to allow imports from Uruguay of boned meat and offal canalised for treatment, produced in conformity with the requirements laid down in Decision 93/402/EEC, produced on or before 23 April 2001. For consignments of bone-in fresh meat and offal for direct human consumption Member States shall not allow these consignments to be imported except for those produced and certified on or before 23 March 2001.(8) Provided the Uruguayan authorities provide information on the completion of their vaccination programme and the disease is under control the Decision will be reviewed with the objective of recommencing imports of boned fresh meat 30 days after the completion date of the vaccination.(9) Decision 93/402/EEC must be amended accordingly.(10) The measures adopted in the present Decision will be reviewed in the light of the evolution of the situation.(11) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
Decision 93/402/EEC is amended as follows:
1. Member States shall authorise imports of:
(a) any fresh meat from Uruguay, produced on or before 23 March 2001, and certified in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 93/402/EEC;
(b) boned fresh meat and offal canalised for treatment from Uruguay, produced after 23 March 2001 up to 23 April 2001, and certified in accordance with the conditions laid down in Decision 93/402/EEC.
2. Consignments of bone-in fresh meat and offal for human consumption other than that referred to in paragraph 1(b), produced after 23 March 2001 shall not be imported into the Community.
This Decision will be reviewed in the light of the outcome of the vaccination campaign to be completed by 24 May 2001.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 May 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 179, 22.7.1993, p. 11.
(4) OJ L 115, 25.4.2001, p. 7.
(Version No 03/2001)
ANIMAL HEALTH GUARANTEES REQUESTED ON CERTIFICATION ((The letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) appearing on the table, are referring to the models of animal health guarantees as described in Annex III Part 2 of Decision 93/402/EEC, to be applied for each product and origin in accordance with Article 2 of this Decision.))

Pending: 32001D0382

January 16, 2026
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),Whereas:(1) The European Community has been a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called “the ICCAT Convention” since 14 November 1997.(2) The ICCAT Convention represents a framework for regional cooperation on the conservation and management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjoining seas through the setting up of an International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called “ICCAT”, and the adoption of recommendations on conservation and management in the convention area which will become binding on the Contracting Parties.(3) At its 11th special meeting on 16 to 23 November 1998, ICCAT adopted a recommendation on the imposition of a time/area closure linked to the use of fish aggregating devices which became mandatory for the Contracting Parties on 21 June 1999. Council Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 of 14 May 2001 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species(2) incorporates this recommendation into Community law.(4) In order to ensure compliance with the measure, provision is made for an observer to remain on board each vessel during the period concerned. Detailed arrangements should be adopted therefore governing the assignment of observers, their tasks and the payment of the costs they incur.(5) Member States should ensure that vessels flying their flag and operating in the ICCAT area comply with the conservation and management measures applicable in the area. It is necessary for the Member States to see to it therefore that the system of observers is applied.(6) The Member States must take steps to ensure that observers are placed on board vessels flying their flags and are reimbursed the costs arising from their assignment.(7) In order to facilitate the application of the system of observers, provision should be made for a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred in assigning observers during the period 1 November 2000 to 31 January 2001. The contribution would be conditional on the costs being taken over by the Member States once the system has become routine,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 11. The costs arising from the assignment of observers deployed under the provisions of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 shall be borne by the Member State which makes the appointment.2. Member States may pass on these costs, in whole or in part, to the owners of the Community fishing vessels referred to in

Article 1
1. The costs arising from the assignment of observers deployed under the provisions of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 shall be borne by the Member State which makes the appointment.
2. Member States may pass on these costs, in whole or in part, to the owners of the Community fishing vessels referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 973/2001.

Article 2
1. In order to facilitate the introduction of the system of observers, the Community may contribute to the financing of the expenditure of the Member States arising from the assignment of the observers, for the period 1 November 2000 to 31 January 2001.
2. The Community contribution shall be 50 % of the expenditure from public funds incurred by each Member State in making the assignment.
3. Member States wishing to qualify for a financial contribution shall submit to the Commission by 1 April 2001 a detailed report on:
– the number of observers assigned;
– the number of vessels concerned;
– the name of the vessel observed and the period for which each observer was assigned;
– the final report of each observer.
4. Member States wishing to qualify for a financial contribution from the Community shall submit an application for reimbursement of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 2 together with two copies of supporting documents by 1 May 2001 at the latest. The supporting documents shall include at least the main points of the agreement between the Member State and the service provider(s), and evidence of the payments concerned.
Member States shall provide assurances that the expenditure has been incurred in compliance with the principles of sound financial management and with the requirements of this Decision.
5. Member States shall provide the Commission with the information necessary to enable it to verify compliance with the requirements of this Decision, in particular regarding the assignment of observers in respect of whom the Community has made a financial contribution.

Article 3
This Decision shall apply from the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 May 2001.
For the Council
The President
(1) Opinion delivered on 28 February 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
(2) See page 1 of this Official Journal.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 37 thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),Whereas:(1) The European Community has been a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called “the ICCAT Convention” since 14 November 1997.(2) The ICCAT Convention represents a framework for regional cooperation on the conservation and management of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and adjoining seas through the setting up of an International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, hereinafter called “ICCAT”, and the adoption of recommendations on conservation and management in the convention area which will become binding on the Contracting Parties.(3) At its 11th special meeting on 16 to 23 November 1998, ICCAT adopted a recommendation on the imposition of a time/area closure linked to the use of fish aggregating devices which became mandatory for the Contracting Parties on 21 June 1999. Council Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 of 14 May 2001 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species(2) incorporates this recommendation into Community law.(4) In order to ensure compliance with the measure, provision is made for an observer to remain on board each vessel during the period concerned. Detailed arrangements should be adopted therefore governing the assignment of observers, their tasks and the payment of the costs they incur.(5) Member States should ensure that vessels flying their flag and operating in the ICCAT area comply with the conservation and management measures applicable in the area. It is necessary for the Member States to see to it therefore that the system of observers is applied.(6) The Member States must take steps to ensure that observers are placed on board vessels flying their flags and are reimbursed the costs arising from their assignment.(7) In order to facilitate the application of the system of observers, provision should be made for a financial contribution from the Community towards the expenditure incurred in assigning observers during the period 1 November 2000 to 31 January 2001. The contribution would be conditional on the costs being taken over by the Member States once the system has become routine,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 11. The costs arising from the assignment of observers deployed under the provisions of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 shall be borne by the Member State which makes the appointment.2. Member States may pass on these costs, in whole or in part, to the owners of the Community fishing vessels referred to in
1. The costs arising from the assignment of observers deployed under the provisions of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 973/2001 shall be borne by the Member State which makes the appointment.
2. Member States may pass on these costs, in whole or in part, to the owners of the Community fishing vessels referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 973/2001.
1. In order to facilitate the introduction of the system of observers, the Community may contribute to the financing of the expenditure of the Member States arising from the assignment of the observers, for the period 1 November 2000 to 31 January 2001.
2. The Community contribution shall be 50 % of the expenditure from public funds incurred by each Member State in making the assignment.
3. Member States wishing to qualify for a financial contribution shall submit to the Commission by 1 April 2001 a detailed report on:
– the number of observers assigned;
– the number of vessels concerned;
– the name of the vessel observed and the period for which each observer was assigned;
– the final report of each observer.
4. Member States wishing to qualify for a financial contribution from the Community shall submit an application for reimbursement of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 2 together with two copies of supporting documents by 1 May 2001 at the latest. The supporting documents shall include at least the main points of the agreement between the Member State and the service provider(s), and evidence of the payments concerned.
Member States shall provide assurances that the expenditure has been incurred in compliance with the principles of sound financial management and with the requirements of this Decision.
5. Member States shall provide the Commission with the information necessary to enable it to verify compliance with the requirements of this Decision, in particular regarding the assignment of observers in respect of whom the Community has made a financial contribution.
This Decision shall apply from the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 14 May 2001.
For the Council
The President
(1) Opinion delivered on 28 February 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
(2) See page 1 of this Official Journal.

Pending: 32001D0368

January 16, 2026
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 258 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 166 thereof,Having regard to the request from the Economic and Social Committee of 15 March 2001,Whereas:(1) The amounts of the daily allowances paid to members and alternates of the Economic and Social Committee, laid down by Council Decision 81/121/EEC(1), should be adapted.(2) Provision should be made for the amounts of the daily allowances to be revised after a year, having regard to the principle sought by the Council that reimbursements should be based on the actual costs incurred rather than on a flat-rate arrangement.(3) The Economic and Social Committee should be allowed to set the amount of experts’ allowances,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Article 2 of Decision 81/121/EEC shall be replaced by the following: “Article 21. The daily allowance per travel day shall be:- EUR 120 for members and alternates.2. The daily allowance per meeting day shall be:- EUR 181 for members and alternates.3. Where the beneficiary furnishes satisfactory proof that he has incurred expenditure on an overnight stay at the place of work, he shall be paid a supplementary daily allowance of EUR 25.”Article 2The Council may revise the amounts laid down in

Article 2
of Decision 81/121/EEC shall be replaced by the following: “Article 2
1. The daily allowance per travel day shall be:
– EUR 120 for members and alternates.
2. The daily allowance per meeting day shall be:
– EUR 181 for members and alternates.
3. Where the beneficiary furnishes satisfactory proof that he has incurred expenditure on an overnight stay at the place of work, he shall be paid a supplementary daily allowance of EUR 25.”

Article 3
This Decision shall take effect on 1 May 2001.
It shall expire on 31 December 2002.
Done at Brussels, 7 May 2001.
For the Council
The President
B. Ringholm
(1) OJ L 67, 12.3.1981, p. 29. Decision as last amended by Council Decision 93/358/EC, Euratom (OJ L 205, 31.8.1995, p. 38).

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 258 thereof,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 166 thereof,Having regard to the request from the Economic and Social Committee of 15 March 2001,Whereas:(1) The amounts of the daily allowances paid to members and alternates of the Economic and Social Committee, laid down by Council Decision 81/121/EEC(1), should be adapted.(2) Provision should be made for the amounts of the daily allowances to be revised after a year, having regard to the principle sought by the Council that reimbursements should be based on the actual costs incurred rather than on a flat-rate arrangement.(3) The Economic and Social Committee should be allowed to set the amount of experts’ allowances,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Article 2 of Decision 81/121/EEC shall be replaced by the following: “Article 21. The daily allowance per travel day shall be:- EUR 120 for members and alternates.2. The daily allowance per meeting day shall be:- EUR 181 for members and alternates.3. Where the beneficiary furnishes satisfactory proof that he has incurred expenditure on an overnight stay at the place of work, he shall be paid a supplementary daily allowance of EUR 25.”Article 2The Council may revise the amounts laid down in
of Decision 81/121/EEC shall be replaced by the following: “Article 2
1. The daily allowance per travel day shall be:
– EUR 120 for members and alternates.
2. The daily allowance per meeting day shall be:
– EUR 181 for members and alternates.
3. Where the beneficiary furnishes satisfactory proof that he has incurred expenditure on an overnight stay at the place of work, he shall be paid a supplementary daily allowance of EUR 25.”
This Decision shall take effect on 1 May 2001.
It shall expire on 31 December 2002.
Done at Brussels, 7 May 2001.
For the Council
The President
B. Ringholm
(1) OJ L 67, 12.3.1981, p. 29. Decision as last amended by Council Decision 93/358/EC, Euratom (OJ L 205, 31.8.1995, p. 38).

Pending: 32001D0300

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999(2), and in particular Articles 12 and 13 thereof,Whereas:(1) In the context of major epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the late 1950s both within the Community and in neighbouring countries, the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EUFMD) was founded within the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations Organisation.(2) In the 1960s, due to increased threats from introduction of exotic strains of FMD into Europe, the member countries of the EUFMD were called ot establish a trust fund aimed at emergency measures to be carried out in the Balkans, the main entrance route of the disease. Later that fund was divided into Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC supported by those member countries that were at the same time Member States of the Community and Trust Fund 90970/MTF/004/MUL supported by member countries of EUFMD which at that time were not or are not Member States of the Community.(3) The last Community contribution to the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC was made on the occasion of FMD outbreaks in the Balkans in 1996, in accordance with Commission Decision 96/368/EC of 14 June 1996 on a Community financial contribution to measures to control foot-and-mouth disease in Albania(3) and Commission Decision 96/439/EC of 18 July 1996 on a Community financial contribution to measures to control foot-and-mouth disease in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(4).(4) In accordance with Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 on control measures for foot-and-mouth diesease(5), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, vaccination against FMD ceased throughout the Community in 1991. The most recent outbreaks of FMD were reported in 2000 in Greece due to introduction from a neighbouring country and in 2001 in the United Kingdom.(5) However in countries adjacent to the Member States outbreaks and in some cases severe epidemics have been recorded during the last years which are liable to threaten the health status of Community susceptible livestock mainly due to movement of persons and goods, excluding imports of livestock and livestock products which are prohibited, and means of transports between Member States and neighbouring countries.(6) In the light of the emergence of new virus topotypes and regional deterioration of control measures, the Community, in close cooperation with the EUFMD and by using the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC, supported emergency vaccination campaigns in Turkey in 1998 and in Transcaucasia in 1999 and 2000.(7) Since its establishment, Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC has been operated on a case-by-case basis in agreement between the Commission and EUFMD by Exchange of Letters of agreement to measures proposed by the EUFMD.(8) On 25 February 2000 a meeting of a group of experts at FAO headquarters reviewed the procedures for operating Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC with regard to expenses incurred due to implementation of agreed FMD control programmes in member countries of the EUFMD or neighbouring countries.(9) Following evaluation, the group of experts from the Commission and the FAO found the FAO rules and procedures for the operation of such funds equivalent to those applicable in Community institutions.(10) The group of experts recommended revision of the rules and procedures for the operation of the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC in order to lay down a formalised agreement on the operation of that Trust Fund. The rules should follow the example of the cooperation programme on food security and its implementing agreement concluded between the Community and the FAO in 2000, which is considered a starting point to a more programmatic approach and formalised procedure in this traditional cooperation between the Community and the FAO.(11) It appears appropriate to fix the Community contribution to the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC at a maximum level of EUR 1,8 million for a period of four years. The budget of the Trust Fund for 2001 should be made up of the balance of its funds on 30 September 2000 and a Community contribution to bring the amount to USD 1 million. Subsequently expenditure should be replenished by annual transfers.(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 11. The balance of Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) at 30 September 2000 shall be struck at USD 226404 as laid down in the final report of the 65th session of the Executive Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot and Mouth Disease (EUFMD).2. As from 1 January 2001 the financial obligation of the Community to the fund referred to in paragraph 1 shall be set at a maximum of EUR 1800000 for a period of four years.3. The first instalment of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 for the year 2001 shall be made up of:(a) the balance referred to in paragraph 1, and(b) a Community contribution of the amount necessary to bring the total to USD 1000000.4. Expenditure incurred by the Trust Fund during the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 shall be replenished by annual Community contributions payable in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. However, these transfers shall be subject to the existence of available funds in the budget of the Commission.5. The annual Community contributions referred to in paragraph 4 shall be based on the financial report produced by the EUFMD to either the annual session of the Executive Committee or the biannual general session of the EUFMD, supported by detailed documentation in accordance with the rules of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).Article 21. An implementing agreement on the use and operation of the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) shall be concluded between the European Commission and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Organisation for the period of four years, starting on 1 January 2001.2. The Trust Fund referred to in

Article 1
1. The balance of Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) at 30 September 2000 shall be struck at USD 226404 as laid down in the final report of the 65th session of the Executive Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot and Mouth Disease (EUFMD).
2. As from 1 January 2001 the financial obligation of the Community to the fund referred to in paragraph 1 shall be set at a maximum of EUR 1800000 for a period of four years.
3. The first instalment of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 for the year 2001 shall be made up of:
(a) the balance referred to in paragraph 1, and
(b) a Community contribution of the amount necessary to bring the total to USD 1000000.
4. Expenditure incurred by the Trust Fund during the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 shall be replenished by annual Community contributions payable in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. However, these transfers shall be subject to the existence of available funds in the budget of the Commission.
5. The annual Community contributions referred to in paragraph 4 shall be based on the financial report produced by the EUFMD to either the annual session of the Executive Committee or the biannual general session of the EUFMD, supported by detailed documentation in accordance with the rules of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Article 2
1. An implementing agreement on the use and operation of the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) shall be concluded between the European Commission and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Organisation for the period of four years, starting on 1 January 2001.
2. The Trust Fund referred to in Article 1 shall be operated in agreement between the Commission and the EUFMD in accordance with the implementing agreement referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
3. The Director-General for Health and Consumer Protection shall be authorised to sign the implementing agreement referred to in paragraph 1 on behalf of the European Commission.

Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.
(3) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 19.
(4) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996, p. 37.
(5) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985, p. 11.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999(2), and in particular Articles 12 and 13 thereof,Whereas:(1) In the context of major epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the late 1950s both within the Community and in neighbouring countries, the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EUFMD) was founded within the framework of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations Organisation.(2) In the 1960s, due to increased threats from introduction of exotic strains of FMD into Europe, the member countries of the EUFMD were called ot establish a trust fund aimed at emergency measures to be carried out in the Balkans, the main entrance route of the disease. Later that fund was divided into Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC supported by those member countries that were at the same time Member States of the Community and Trust Fund 90970/MTF/004/MUL supported by member countries of EUFMD which at that time were not or are not Member States of the Community.(3) The last Community contribution to the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC was made on the occasion of FMD outbreaks in the Balkans in 1996, in accordance with Commission Decision 96/368/EC of 14 June 1996 on a Community financial contribution to measures to control foot-and-mouth disease in Albania(3) and Commission Decision 96/439/EC of 18 July 1996 on a Community financial contribution to measures to control foot-and-mouth disease in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(4).(4) In accordance with Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 on control measures for foot-and-mouth diesease(5), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, vaccination against FMD ceased throughout the Community in 1991. The most recent outbreaks of FMD were reported in 2000 in Greece due to introduction from a neighbouring country and in 2001 in the United Kingdom.(5) However in countries adjacent to the Member States outbreaks and in some cases severe epidemics have been recorded during the last years which are liable to threaten the health status of Community susceptible livestock mainly due to movement of persons and goods, excluding imports of livestock and livestock products which are prohibited, and means of transports between Member States and neighbouring countries.(6) In the light of the emergence of new virus topotypes and regional deterioration of control measures, the Community, in close cooperation with the EUFMD and by using the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC, supported emergency vaccination campaigns in Turkey in 1998 and in Transcaucasia in 1999 and 2000.(7) Since its establishment, Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC has been operated on a case-by-case basis in agreement between the Commission and EUFMD by Exchange of Letters of agreement to measures proposed by the EUFMD.(8) On 25 February 2000 a meeting of a group of experts at FAO headquarters reviewed the procedures for operating Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC with regard to expenses incurred due to implementation of agreed FMD control programmes in member countries of the EUFMD or neighbouring countries.(9) Following evaluation, the group of experts from the Commission and the FAO found the FAO rules and procedures for the operation of such funds equivalent to those applicable in Community institutions.(10) The group of experts recommended revision of the rules and procedures for the operation of the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC in order to lay down a formalised agreement on the operation of that Trust Fund. The rules should follow the example of the cooperation programme on food security and its implementing agreement concluded between the Community and the FAO in 2000, which is considered a starting point to a more programmatic approach and formalised procedure in this traditional cooperation between the Community and the FAO.(11) It appears appropriate to fix the Community contribution to the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC at a maximum level of EUR 1,8 million for a period of four years. The budget of the Trust Fund for 2001 should be made up of the balance of its funds on 30 September 2000 and a Community contribution to bring the amount to USD 1 million. Subsequently expenditure should be replenished by annual transfers.(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 11. The balance of Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) at 30 September 2000 shall be struck at USD 226404 as laid down in the final report of the 65th session of the Executive Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot and Mouth Disease (EUFMD).2. As from 1 January 2001 the financial obligation of the Community to the fund referred to in paragraph 1 shall be set at a maximum of EUR 1800000 for a period of four years.3. The first instalment of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 for the year 2001 shall be made up of:(a) the balance referred to in paragraph 1, and(b) a Community contribution of the amount necessary to bring the total to USD 1000000.4. Expenditure incurred by the Trust Fund during the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 shall be replenished by annual Community contributions payable in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. However, these transfers shall be subject to the existence of available funds in the budget of the Commission.5. The annual Community contributions referred to in paragraph 4 shall be based on the financial report produced by the EUFMD to either the annual session of the Executive Committee or the biannual general session of the EUFMD, supported by detailed documentation in accordance with the rules of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).Article 21. An implementing agreement on the use and operation of the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) shall be concluded between the European Commission and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Organisation for the period of four years, starting on 1 January 2001.2. The Trust Fund referred to in
1. The balance of Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) at 30 September 2000 shall be struck at USD 226404 as laid down in the final report of the 65th session of the Executive Committee of the European Commission for the Control of Foot and Mouth Disease (EUFMD).
2. As from 1 January 2001 the financial obligation of the Community to the fund referred to in paragraph 1 shall be set at a maximum of EUR 1800000 for a period of four years.
3. The first instalment of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 for the year 2001 shall be made up of:
(a) the balance referred to in paragraph 1, and
(b) a Community contribution of the amount necessary to bring the total to USD 1000000.
4. Expenditure incurred by the Trust Fund during the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 shall be replenished by annual Community contributions payable in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. However, these transfers shall be subject to the existence of available funds in the budget of the Commission.
5. The annual Community contributions referred to in paragraph 4 shall be based on the financial report produced by the EUFMD to either the annual session of the Executive Committee or the biannual general session of the EUFMD, supported by detailed documentation in accordance with the rules of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
1. An implementing agreement on the use and operation of the Trust Fund 911100/MTF/INT/003/EEC (TFEU 970089129) shall be concluded between the European Commission and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Organisation for the period of four years, starting on 1 January 2001.
2. The Trust Fund referred to in Article 1 shall be operated in agreement between the Commission and the EUFMD in accordance with the implementing agreement referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
3. The Director-General for Health and Consumer Protection shall be authorised to sign the implementing agreement referred to in paragraph 1 on behalf of the European Commission.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.
(3) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 19.
(4) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996, p. 37.
(5) OJ L 315, 26.11.1985, p. 11.

Pending: 32001D0276

January 16, 2026
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), in particular Articles 3 and 14 thereof,Whereas:(1) The animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Argentina are laid down by Commission Decision 93/402/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/755/EC(4).(2) Imports of fresh meat must take into account the different epidemiological situations in the countries concerned, and indeed in the different parts of their territories.(3) The responsibe veterinary authorities of the concerned countries must confirm that their countries or regions have for at least 12 months been free from rinderpest, and foot-and-mouth disease. Furthermore, the responsible authorities of the concerned countries must undertake to notify the Commission and the Member States within 24 hours, by fax, telex or telegram of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or an alteration in the vaccination policy against them.(4) On 2 March 2001 the authorities of Argentina informed the Commission that a new regionalisation and vaccination policy against foot-and-mouth disease was being introduced as a result of the incursion of illegally intorduced animals from neighbouring countries found to be positive for foot-and-mouth disease in order to protect the border areas and part of the rearing and fattening areas of central Argentina.(5) The authorities of Argentina have provided information that, inter alia, in the northem border areas (buffer area) and a separate central area (restricted area) vaccination of cattle against foot-and-mouth disease is being reintroduced after a cessation of vaccination since 1999. In addition an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was notified to the OIE on 13 March 2001. Therefore it appears that the status of the country should be reviewed in the light of these changes as the existing requirements were based on a different disease and animal movement control strategy.(6) Moreover information from Argentina indicates that it has suspended exports of meat to Canada, Chile and the United States of America but not to the European Community.(7) It is therefore necessary to supsend the authorisation of importation into the Community of all categories of fresh meat from those species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, at least until a Commission inspection mission has been carried out to examine the new situation on the ground or the situation has been adequately clarified.(8) It is necessary to clarify the tables listing the countries following experience gained in the implementation of this Decision by the authorities.(9) Therefore importation into the Community of fresh meat from bovines and ovines should no longer be authorised.(10) Decision 93/402/EEC must be amended accordingly.(11) It will be necessary to review this Decision in the light of the results of the next Commission veterinay inspection mission and/or any change in the health situation in Argentina notified to the Commission in the meantime.(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

Article 1
Decision 93/402/EEC is amended as follows:
1. Annex I is replaced by Annex A to this Decision;
2. Annex II is replaced by Annex B to this Decision.

Article 2
This Decision shall apply until 15 April 2001.

Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 April 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 179, 22.7.1993, p. 11.
(4) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 36.

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), in particular Articles 3 and 14 thereof,Whereas:(1) The animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile and Argentina are laid down by Commission Decision 93/402/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/755/EC(4).(2) Imports of fresh meat must take into account the different epidemiological situations in the countries concerned, and indeed in the different parts of their territories.(3) The responsibe veterinary authorities of the concerned countries must confirm that their countries or regions have for at least 12 months been free from rinderpest, and foot-and-mouth disease. Furthermore, the responsible authorities of the concerned countries must undertake to notify the Commission and the Member States within 24 hours, by fax, telex or telegram of the confirmation of the occurrence of any of the abovementioned diseases or an alteration in the vaccination policy against them.(4) On 2 March 2001 the authorities of Argentina informed the Commission that a new regionalisation and vaccination policy against foot-and-mouth disease was being introduced as a result of the incursion of illegally intorduced animals from neighbouring countries found to be positive for foot-and-mouth disease in order to protect the border areas and part of the rearing and fattening areas of central Argentina.(5) The authorities of Argentina have provided information that, inter alia, in the northem border areas (buffer area) and a separate central area (restricted area) vaccination of cattle against foot-and-mouth disease is being reintroduced after a cessation of vaccination since 1999. In addition an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was notified to the OIE on 13 March 2001. Therefore it appears that the status of the country should be reviewed in the light of these changes as the existing requirements were based on a different disease and animal movement control strategy.(6) Moreover information from Argentina indicates that it has suspended exports of meat to Canada, Chile and the United States of America but not to the European Community.(7) It is therefore necessary to supsend the authorisation of importation into the Community of all categories of fresh meat from those species susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease, at least until a Commission inspection mission has been carried out to examine the new situation on the ground or the situation has been adequately clarified.(8) It is necessary to clarify the tables listing the countries following experience gained in the implementation of this Decision by the authorities.(9) Therefore importation into the Community of fresh meat from bovines and ovines should no longer be authorised.(10) Decision 93/402/EEC must be amended accordingly.(11) It will be necessary to review this Decision in the light of the results of the next Commission veterinay inspection mission and/or any change in the health situation in Argentina notified to the Commission in the meantime.(12) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,
Decision 93/402/EEC is amended as follows:
1. Annex I is replaced by Annex A to this Decision;
2. Annex II is replaced by Annex B to this Decision.
This Decision shall apply until 15 April 2001.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 April 2001.
For the Commission
David Byrne
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 179, 22.7.1993, p. 11.
(4) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 36.
DESCRIPTION OF TERRITORIES OF SOUTH AMERICA ESTABLISHED FOR ANIMAL HEALTH CERTIFICATION PURPOSES
(Version No 02/2001)
ANIMAL HEALTH GUARANTEES REQUESTED ON CERTIFICATION ((The letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H) appearing on the table, are referring to the models of animal health guarantees as described in Annex III Part 2 of Decision 93/402/EEC, to be applied for each product and origin in accordance with Article 2 of this Decision.))

Pending: 32001D0173

January 16, 2026
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,Whereas one seat as member and one seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS, member, and Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK, alternate member, notified to the Council on 21 September 2000 and 6 February 2001 respectively;Having regard to the proposal from the Netherlands Government,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr W. ZWAAN is hereby appointed full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS and Mr VERKERK is hereby appointed alternate member in place of Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK respectively for the remainder of their current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. Lindh(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.

Article 263
Council Decisionof 26 February 2001appointing a Dutch member and a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions(2001/173/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,Whereas one seat as member and one seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS, member, and Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK, alternate member, notified to the Council on 21 September 2000 and 6 February 2001 respectively;Having regard to the proposal from the Netherlands Government,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr W. ZWAAN is hereby appointed full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS and Mr VERKERK is hereby appointed alternate member in place of Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK respectively for the remainder of their current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. Lindh(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.
Council Decision
of 26 February 2001
appointing a Dutch member and a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
(2001/173/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,
Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,
Whereas one seat as member and one seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS, member, and Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK, alternate member, notified to the Council on 21 September 2000 and 6 February 2001 respectively;
Having regard to the proposal from the Netherlands Government,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Mr W. ZWAAN is hereby appointed full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS and Mr VERKERK is hereby appointed alternate member in place of Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK respectively for the remainder of their current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.
Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.
For the Council
The President
A. Lindh
(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,Whereas one seat as member and one seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS, member, and Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK, alternate member, notified to the Council on 21 September 2000 and 6 February 2001 respectively;Having regard to the proposal from the Netherlands Government,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr W. ZWAAN is hereby appointed full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS and Mr VERKERK is hereby appointed alternate member in place of Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK respectively for the remainder of their current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. Lindh(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.
Council Decisionof 26 February 2001appointing a Dutch member and a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions(2001/173/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,Whereas one seat as member and one seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS, member, and Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK, alternate member, notified to the Council on 21 September 2000 and 6 February 2001 respectively;Having regard to the proposal from the Netherlands Government,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleMr W. ZWAAN is hereby appointed full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS and Mr VERKERK is hereby appointed alternate member in place of Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK respectively for the remainder of their current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. Lindh(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.
Council Decision
of 26 February 2001
appointing a Dutch member and a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
(2001/173/EC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,
Having regard to the Council Decision of 26 January 1998(1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions,
Whereas one seat as member and one seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS, member, and Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK, alternate member, notified to the Council on 21 September 2000 and 6 February 2001 respectively;
Having regard to the proposal from the Netherlands Government,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
Mr W. ZWAAN is hereby appointed full member of the Committee of the Regions in place of Mr A.G.J.M. ROMBOUTS and Mr VERKERK is hereby appointed alternate member in place of Ms Mathilde VAN DEN BRINK respectively for the remainder of their current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2002.
Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001.
For the Council
The President
A. Lindh
(1) OJ L 28, 4.2.1998, p. 19.