EU Bulletins

Regulation (EC) No 2232/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council provides for a Community procedure for evaluation and authorisation of flavouring substances and also provides for a list of flavouring substances that are authorised to the exclusion of all others. The notified substances were entered in a register laid down by Commission Decision 1999/217/EC adopting a register of flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs drawn up in application of Regulation 2232/96. This Regulation, which applies from 27 March 2013, repeals and replaces Regulation 2232/96 although parts of that Regulation will continue to apply to flavouring substances under evaluation, pending their inclusion as evaluated substances in Part A of the Union list or their removal from that list. The list of flavouring substances referred to in Art. 2(2) of Regulation 2232/96 is introduced into Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods. Decision 1999/217/EC is also repealed with effect from 27 March 2013 as is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 which laid down the measures necessary for the adoption of an evaluation programme in application of Regulation 2232/96.

Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerns flavourings and certain food ingredients with flavouring properties for use in and on foods. Art. 10 of that Regulation provides that, of the flavourings and source materials referred to in its Art. 9, only those included in the Union list may be placed on the market as such and used in or on foods under the conditions of use specified therein, where applicable. Art. 30 specifies that Art. 10 is to apply from 18 months after the date of application of the Union list. That date of application, for Parts B to F of the Union list of flavourings and source materials, is fixed by this Regulation as 27 September 2016. However, foods containing flavouring substances, which are lawfully placed on the market or labelled prior to 27 September 2014, but which do not comply with Part A of Annex I to Regulation 1334/2008 may be marketed until their date of minimum durability or use-by date. Certain other transitional measures are also put in place and, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Art. 30 of Regulation 1334/2008, concerning amendments to Regulations 1601/91 and 110/2008, the date of application of the Union list of flavourings and source materials will be 27 March 2013. Interested parties must submit applications for authorisation of flavourings and source materials referred to in Art. 9(b) to (f) of Regulation 1334/2008, placed on the market at the time of entry into force of this Regulation, to the European Commission at the latest by 27 September 2015.

Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council established a scheme for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowance trading within the Community. Commission Decision 2010/2/EU determines, pursuant to that Directive, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. If other developed countries and major GHG emitters do not participate in international agreements on climate change, this could lead to an increase in emissions in those countries where industry would not be subject to comparable carbon constraints. This concept is known as carbon leakage and would put industries and manufacturers in the EU at a disadvantage. Commission Decision 2011/278/EU determines transitional Union-wide rules for the harmonised free allocation of emission allowances to address this problem. Every year a sector or subsector may be added to the list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. That is the purpose of this Decision which amends Decisions 2010/2/EU and 2011/278/EU accordingly.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is implemented in the European Union by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 concerning the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. Detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation 338/97 are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006. In the light of experience, and in response to changes made to CITES itself, this Regulation amends Regulation 865/2006. It enters into force on 27 September 2012 and applies from the same date. The associated Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2012 lays down rules for the design of permits, certificates and other documents provided for in Council Regulation 338/97.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is implemented in the European Union by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 concerning the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. Detailed rules concerning the implementation of Regulation 338/97 are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006. This Regulation describes the design and technical specifications with regard to forms for permits, certificates and other documents provided for in Regulations 338/97 and 865/2006. It enters into force on 27 September 2012 and applies from the same date. The associated Commission Regulation 791/2012 concerns the implementation of CITES in the EU.

Validation of non-formal and informal learning has been part of the European policy agenda since 2001, when the European Commission defined lifelong learning as all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competences within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective. Since the Copenhagen Declaration on enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training, a series of initiatives have been taken to develop European tools and instruments in the area of lifelong learning. This proposal argues that validation of non-formal and informal learning makes an essential contribution to EU's ambition to achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth set by the Europe 2020 Strategy (COM(2010) 2020). The actions proposed in this draft Recommendation aim to ensure that, by 2015, every citizen has the opportunity to have his/her skills acquired outside formal education and training systems validated and to use this validation for working and learning purposes throughout Europe. Actions are proposed for both the Commission and the Member States. This proposal is accompanied by the Commission Staff Working Documents SWD(2012) 252 and SWD(2012) 253.

These cases form part of a series of actions brought by the European Commission against a number of Member States for failure to fulfil their obligations under the directives governing the functioning of the railway sector (Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council). Advocate General Jääskinen considers each of the actions separately and in detail and proposes that the Court of Justice (CJEU) declare that Spain, Hungary and Portugal have failed to fulfil their obligations under EU law in that field. With regard to Cases C-555/10 Commission v Austria and C-556/10 Commission v Germany, he suggests that the Commission’s actions should be dismissed. The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the CJEU, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case and judgment will be given at a later date.

The Treaties require the European Parliament to meet in 12 monthly plenary sessions per year in Strasbourg but do not prescribe the length of those sessions. It is traditional for two plenary sessions to be held in Strasbourg in October to compensate for the lack of a plenary session in August. In accordance with practice, the ordinary plenary sessions, which last four days, are held in Strasbourg while the additional sessions which, in principle, are held on successive half-days, are held in Brussels. When Parliament, by two acts adopted on 9 March 2011, amended the calendar of sessions for 2012 and 2013, France brought an action before the Court of Justice (CJEU) seeking annulment of those two acts. In this Opinion, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi proposes that the Court uphold the action brought by France as being well-founded. In his view, the plenary sessions of October 2012 and 2013, artificially split in two by the Parliament, cannot be classed individually as monthly plenary sessions. The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the CJEU, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case and judgment will be given at a later date.

Under the VAT Directive (Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax), the sale in a Member State of goods dispatched or transported to a destination in another Member State, for a purchaser which is itself liable for VAT in a Member State other than that in which dispatch or transport of the goods began, is exempt from VAT in the former Member State. In such cases, it is the purchaser which is liable for VAT in the country of destination. This case concerns a Hungarian company (Mecsek-Gabona) which sold rapeseed to a company established in Italy. It then issued two invoices in respect of that transaction. In the belief that the operation was an intra-Community transaction exempt from VAT in Hungary, it did not invoice the VAT to the purchaser and did not pay it to the Hungarian tax authority. However, the Italian tax authority discovered that the purchasing company could not be found and that it had never paid VAT in Italy. When the Hungarian tax authority ordered Mecsek-Gabona to pay the VAT in respect of that transaction, and imposed on it a fine and a late-payment penalty, it contested that decision before the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Baranya County Court), which asked the Court of Justice (CJEU) to determine what constitutes satisfactory evidence that a tax-exempt supply of goods has taken place. The Court has ruled that a company which has sold goods for transport to another Member State may be refused the VAT exemption if it has failed to prove that the supply is an intra-Community transaction. A vendor may not be granted the VAT exemption attaching to an intra-Community transaction if it knew or should have known that the transaction was part of a tax fraud committed by the purchaser and had not taken every step which could reasonably asked of it to prevent that fraud from being committed. However, if the company has produced the requisite proof and acted in good faith, it cannot be refused the VAT exemption on the ground that the purchaser did not transport the goods to a destination outside the Member State of dispatch.

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made on foods prohibits all "health claims" in the labelling and advertising of beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume of alcohol, including wine. Deutsches Weintor, a German wine-growers’ cooperative, markets wines which include on their labels the description "mild edition, easily digestible". The authority responsible for supervising the marketing of alcoholic beverages in the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate objected to this on the ground that it is a health claim. Consequently, Deutsches Weintor turned to the German courts for permission to use that description in the labelling of its wines and in their advertising. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), before which the dispute was brought on final appeal, asked the Court of Justice (CJEU) to clarify the scope of the prohibition in question, and, if necessary, to rule on its compatibility with the fundamental rights of producers and distributors of wine, such as the freedom to choose an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business. The CJEU has ruled that the prohibition against using health described above covers the description "easily digestible", accompanied by a reference to the reduced content of substances frequently perceived by consumers as being harmful. Such a description, indicating reduced acidity levels, constitutes a health claim that is prohibited in relation to alcoholic beverages.

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) aims to protect consumers, as the weaker party to the contract, in cross-border disputes, by facilitating their access to the courts, in particular by geographical proximity of the court which has jurisdiction. Consumer may thus sue in their national courts a trader with whom they have concluded a contract, even if the trader is domiciled in another Member State, on two conditions: first, the trader must pursue commercial or professional activities in the Member State in which the consumer resides or, by any means (for example, via the internet), direct such activities to that Member State; and, secondly, the contract at issue must fall within the scope of such activities. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) has, in this case, asked the Court of Justice (CJEU) whether, for it to be possible to sue in the national courts, the contract between the consumer and the trader must also be concluded at a distance. The CJEU has ruled that this is not necessary. The fact that the consumer travelled to the trader’s Member State to sign the contract does not therefore prevent the courts of the consumer’s Member State from having jurisdiction.

Directive 2004/17/EC concerns the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors. On 17 August 2012, the European Commission received a request under Art. 30(5) of the Directive from Noble Energy International Ltd, concerning exploration for oil and gas in Cyprus. Art. 30 provides that the legislation does not apply where the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. The Commission is required to make a decision on the request within three months (that is, by 20 November 2012) but may extend that period by a further three months. Further requests concerning exploration for and extraction of oil and gas in Cyprus submitted before the expiry of that period will not be considered as new procedures, but will be treated in the context of this request.

The European Union and its 27 Member States provide about half of global funding for emergency relief to victims of man-made and natural disasters. The EU also promotes respect for, and adherence to, international humanitarian law. This annual report focuses on the European Commission’s humanitarian aid and civil protection programmes in 2011. Amongst other things, it highlights a number of initiatives on which the Commission focused during the year, including: presentation of legislative proposals on civil protection; moves to establish a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps; the further roll-out of the EU humanitarian food assistance policy; cooperation between the countries participating in the Civil Protection (CP) Mechanism; and collecting information as part of an 18-month good practice programme for disaster prevention. Further details are provided in the accompanying Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012) 254.