# Official Journal C 154/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6017 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6017 May 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 154/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8463 — CPPIB/PSPIB/Waiheke) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 154/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8418 — Peter Cremer Holding/Hage/König Transportgesellschaft) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 154/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8446 — ELO/AP1/Real Estate Portfolio in Finland) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2017/C 154/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8427 — KKR/Telefónica/Telxius) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 154/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8463 — CPPIB/PSPIB/Waiheke) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 154/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8418 — Peter Cremer Holding/Hage/König Transportgesellschaft) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 154/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8446 — ELO/AP1/Real Estate Portfolio in Finland) (
  1
  )

1

2

2017/C 154/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8427 — KKR/Telefónica/Telxius) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 154/05 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2017/C 154/06 | Commission notice — Guidance document — EU regime governing intra-EU trade and re-export of ivory | 4 |
| 2017/C 154/07 | Commission Notice — Guidance on Worked Specimens under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations | 15 |
| 2017/C 154/08 | Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 June 2017(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 )) | 27 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 154/05

Euro exchange rates

3

2017/C 154/06

Commission notice — Guidance document — EU regime governing intra-EU trade and re-export of ivory

4

2017/C 154/07

Commission Notice — Guidance on Worked Specimens under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations

15

2017/C 154/08

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 June 2017(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))

27

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8463 — CPPIB/PSPIB/Waiheke)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 154/01)

On 3 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8463. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8463. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8418 — Peter Cremer Holding/Hage/König Transportgesellschaft)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 154/02)

On 3 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8418. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8418. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8446 — ELO/AP1/Real Estate Portfolio in Finland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 154/03)

On 3 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8446. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8446. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8427 — KKR/Telefónica/Telxius)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 154/04)

On 10 May 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8427. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8427. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 May 2017

(2017/C 154/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1059 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4394 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85868 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7215 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0958 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3918 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,420 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,54 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1984 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5478 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9330 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4920 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5058 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6143 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6090 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5457 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 234,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5287 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6185 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4303 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 709,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7791 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,898 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 62,3000 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,187 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4316 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,6886 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,8505 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1059

JPY

Japanese yen

125,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4394

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85868

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7215

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0958

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3918

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,420

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,54

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1984

RON

Romanian leu

4,5478

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9330

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4920

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5058

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6143

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6090

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5457

KRW

South Korean won

1 234,76

ZAR

South African rand

14,5287

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6185

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4303

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 709,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7791

PHP

Philippine peso

54,898

RUB

Russian rouble

62,3000

THB

Thai baht

38,187

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4316

MXN

Mexican peso

20,6886

INR

Indian rupee

70,8505

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/4

---

COMMISSION NOTICE

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

EU regime governing intra-EU trade and re-export of ivory

(2017/C 154/06)

The purpose of the present guidelines is to provide an interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1) recommending that EU Member States (i) suspend the (re)export of raw ivory items and (ii) ensure a strict interpretation of the provisions in EU law authorising intra-EU trade in ivory and the (re)export of worked ivory.

1.   Background and justification

(i)   The international and EU legal framework governing ivory trade

Both the African Elephant Loxodonta africana and the Asian Elephant Elephas maximus are included in the Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which gathers 183 Parties, including the EU and all EU Member States. Under the current CITES regime, international trade in ivory (2) is banned, with strictly limited exemptions (notably for items acquired before the provisions of CITES started to apply to ivory). The CITES Convention does not regulate domestic trade in ivory.

The CITES Convention is implemented in the EU through Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and associated Commission Regulations (EU Wildlife Trade Regulations). In the case of elephant ivory (as for other species listed in Annex A to Regulation (EC) No 338/97), the EU has in addition adopted measures which are stricter than CITES provisions.

As a result, trade in ivory is strictly regulated in the EU through the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations and trade to, within and from the EU of ivory for commercial purposes is generally not permitted.

Intra-EU trade and the re-export of ivory for commercial purposes are only permitted under the following conditions:

| — | intra-EU trade is authorised for ivory items imported into the EU before the elephant species was listed in Appendix I of CITES (18 January 1990 for African elephant and 1 July 1975 for Asian elephant) (3). Intra-EU trade can only occur if a certificate has been issued to this effect by the relevant EU Member State, except for ‘worked specimens’ (see definition below) acquired before 3 March 1947, which can be traded in the EU without a certificate. |
| --- | --- |

—

intra-EU trade is authorised for ivory items imported into the EU before the elephant species was listed in Appendix I of CITES (18 January 1990 for African elephant and 1 July 1975 for Asian elephant) (3). Intra-EU trade can only occur if a certificate has been issued to this effect by the relevant EU Member State, except for ‘worked specimens’ (see definition below) acquired before 3 March 1947, which can be traded in the EU without a certificate.

| — | re-export from the EU is authorised for ivory specimens acquired before the date on which CITES became applicable to them, i.e. 26 February 1976 for African elephants and 1 July 1975 for Asian elephants (4). |
| --- | --- |

—

re-export from the EU is authorised for ivory specimens acquired before the date on which CITES became applicable to them, i.e. 26 February 1976 for African elephants and 1 July 1975 for Asian elephants (4).

(ii)   The international context: a surge in elephant poaching and ivory trafficking driven by a growing demand from Asia

In recent years, elephant poaching has reached very high levels. Between 20 000 and 30 000 African elephants have been reportedly killed every year since 2011 (5). This has led to a widespread decline of the African elephant populations, jeopardising the recovery of the species observed between 1990 and the mid-2000's.

Along with this significant increase in the level of poaching of African Elephants, the illicit trade in ivory has escalated, driven by the continued growth of the demand for ivory in Asian markets. According to the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) (6), between 2010 and 2015 approximately 39 tonnes of raw ivory were seized per annum and seizures of worked ivory have steadily increased over the years, averaging ca. 5,6 tonnes per annum (7). The movement of such large scale ivory consignments reflects the fact that transnational organised criminal networks have been getting increasingly involved in illegal trade in ivory.

In response to this surge in elephant poaching and ivory trafficking, the international community has adopted numerous commitments, through Resolutions by the UN General Assembly and the UN Environmental Assembly, as well as at several high level Conferences.

A number of new measures were agreed at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention (CITES CoP17) in October 2016, aiming to strengthen the enforcement of the rules against elephant poaching and ivory trafficking, reduce the demand for illegal ivory and reinforce the scrutiny on the legality of ivory present in domestic markets.

CITES Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP17) on trade in elephant specimens urges Parties to put in place comprehensive internal legislative, regulatory, enforcement and other measures for ivory trade/domestic markets. This Resolution also recommends ‘that all Parties and non-Parties in whose jurisdiction there is a legal domestic market for ivory that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade, take all necessary legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures to close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency’ and recognises that ‘narrow exemptions to this closure for some items may be warranted; any exemptions should not contribute to poaching or illegal trade’.

(iii)   An increasing level of legal trade in ivory from the EU to Asia

Commercial re-exports of both raw and worked ivory from the EU carried out in line with Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (‘legal re-exports’) have considerably increased in recent years, with a pronounced upward trend in the re-exports of ivory to East Asia (see box 1).

| Box 1


  Levels of legal re-export of ivory from the EU — basic facts and figures

  Elephant tusks are the specimens which represent the largest share of the re-export of raw ivory items from the EU. While the number of tusks re-exported annually from the EU was always below 100 units between 2006 and 2012 (except for 2008 where it reached 111 items), this figure increased considerably in 2013 (reaching more than 300 items) and more markedly in 2014 and 2015 (more than 600 items each year). Nearly all elephant tusks re-exported in 2014 and 2015 from the EU were destined to China or Hong Kong SAR.
  In addition to trade in tusks, the EU Member States also reported trade in raw ivory in the form of ivory pieces over the last decade. There appears to have been a general decline in re-exports of ivory pieces reported by weight, but a general increase of re-exports reported by number of specimens (with large fluctuations between years), suggesting that trade in this commodity has remained relatively constant over the last decade. The actual quantities of ivory pieces are, however, very difficult to quantify, as pieces could vary enormously in size.
  The number of worked ivory items re-exported from the EU has increased in recent years, with data reported by EU Member States showing a marked increase since 2012. The highest quantities were reported in 2015 as far as trade in individual specimens (10 000 ivory items re-exported in 2015) is concerned. It should be noted however that trade is reported in different units by Member States. In addition to trade in individual items, trade has also been reported in mass (kg). Re-exports of ivory reported by Member States in mass have been fluctuating considerably, reaching their highest levels in 2012 (ca. 600 kg, in addition to 7 000 individual items) and ca. 200 kg in 2015.
  The re-export of worked ivory items encompasses many different types of objects (including antiques, musical instruments or various other kinds of carvings). The main destination markets for these items are China and Hong Kong SAR, but smaller levels of trade to other countries have also been reported, notably the USA, Switzerland, Japan and the Russian Federation).

  The data used to assess levels of trade are from the re-export records reported by EU Member States as part of their CITES annual reports, in line with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 |
| --- |

Box 1

Levels of legal re-export of ivory from the EU — basic facts and figures

Elephant tusks are the specimens which represent the largest share of the re-export of raw ivory items from the EU. While the number of tusks re-exported annually from the EU was always below 100 units between 2006 and 2012 (except for 2008 where it reached 111 items), this figure increased considerably in 2013 (reaching more than 300 items) and more markedly in 2014 and 2015 (more than 600 items each year). Nearly all elephant tusks re-exported in 2014 and 2015 from the EU were destined to China or Hong Kong SAR.

In addition to trade in tusks, the EU Member States also reported trade in raw ivory in the form of ivory pieces over the last decade. There appears to have been a general decline in re-exports of ivory pieces reported by weight, but a general increase of re-exports reported by number of specimens (with large fluctuations between years), suggesting that trade in this commodity has remained relatively constant over the last decade. The actual quantities of ivory pieces are, however, very difficult to quantify, as pieces could vary enormously in size.

The number of worked ivory items re-exported from the EU has increased in recent years, with data reported by EU Member States showing a marked increase since 2012. The highest quantities were reported in 2015 as far as trade in individual specimens (10 000 ivory items re-exported in 2015) is concerned. It should be noted however that trade is reported in different units by Member States. In addition to trade in individual items, trade has also been reported in mass (kg). Re-exports of ivory reported by Member States in mass have been fluctuating considerably, reaching their highest levels in 2012 (ca. 600 kg, in addition to 7 000 individual items) and ca. 200 kg in 2015.

The re-export of worked ivory items encompasses many different types of objects (including antiques, musical instruments or various other kinds of carvings). The main destination markets for these items are China and Hong Kong SAR, but smaller levels of trade to other countries have also been reported, notably the USA, Switzerland, Japan and the Russian Federation).

The data used to assess levels of trade are from the re-export records reported by EU Member States as part of their CITES annual reports, in line with Article 15(4) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97

(iv)   EU initiatives against wildlife trafficking with regard to intra-EU ivory trade and export of ivory

The Communication on an EU Action Plan against wildlife trafficking (8) invites the EU and its Member States to implement a comprehensive strategy against wildlife trafficking. This Communication notably foresees (under Action 2 ‘further limit trade in ivory within and from the EU’) that the European Commission should issue guidelines ‘to ensure uniform interpretation of EU rules with the aim to suspend the export of raw pre-Convention ivory and guarantee that only legal ancient ivory items are traded in the EU’ by the end of 2016.

In its conclusions in June 2016 on this Communication, the Council of the European Union urged ‘Member States not to issue export or re-export documents for raw pre-Convention ivory from elephants on the basis of EU guidelines and to consider further measures to put a halt to commercial trade in ivory from elephants’.

These present guidelines were developed in response to these calls.

The increasing demand for ivory from Asia is one of the most important drivers for the current high levels of elephant poaching and ivory trafficking. Through the present guidelines, the EU will contribute to reduce such demand and support the efforts by important destination markets for wildlife products, such as China which adopted in 2016 specific measures to restrict the import of ivory items in its territory and has announced that it will phase out its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017. These guidelines also aim at making sure that ivory of illegal origin is not traded within or from the EU and that legal trade in ivory cannot be used as a cover for illegal ivory.

The present guidelines address first the re-export of ivory from the EU (section 3) and then intra-EU trade in ivory (section 4).

2.   Status of the document

The present guidance document was discussed and developed in cooperation with Member States' representatives gathered in ‘Group of Experts of the Competent CITES Management Authorities’.

This notice is intended to assist citizens, businesses and national authorities in the application of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and its Implementing Regulations. This guidance document does not replace, add to or amend the provisions of the Council Regulation and of its Implementing Regulations; furthermore it should not be considered in isolation but used in conjunction with this legislation. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law.

The document shall be published electronically by the Commission, and may be published by the Member States.

The document will be reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with the ‘Group of Experts of the Competent CITES Management Authorities’, in the second semester of 2019. However, the Commission and the Member States will pay specific attention to concerns over the domestic trade in ivory, as well to the re-export of worked ivory from the EU, with a view to considering whether changes to the present guidance are required on these points before the second semester 2019.

3.   Guidance on the interpretation of EU rules on re-export of ivory

(i)   Guidance on the re-export of raw ivory

The rules governing the re-export of raw ivory (9) specimens acquired before the date on which CITES became applicable to them are laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

Pursuant to Article 5(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, when assessing applications for re-export of raw ivory, Management Authorities need to be ‘satisfied, following consultation with the competent Scientific Authority, that there are no other factors relating to the conservation of the species which militate against issuance of the export permit’.

These provisions need to be interpreted in light of the circumstances described in section 1 as well as in view of the specific features relating to international trade in raw ivory. Raw ivory represents the largest share of ivory entering international illegal trade worldwide. This is evidenced by the data reported by CITES Parties to ETIS, which show that seizures of illegal raw ivory represent the large majority of ivory seized worldwide. Raw ivory mainly consists of tusks, which are difficult to differentiate from another. The risks that the legal re-export of raw ivory is used as a cover for the illegal trade in illegal raw ivory are bigger than for worked ivory, despite the fact that legal tusks can only be traded if they marked.

Suspending the re-export of raw ivory from the EU will ensure that tusks of legal origin are not mixed with illegal ivory and help destination countries implement their actions to reduce the demand for ivory, which constitute an important step in addressing illegal trade in ivory and the current elephant poaching surge.

The Commission recommend that, in the current circumstances, in the light of the precautionary principle, and unless conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary comes to light, Member States should consider that there are serious factors relating to the conservation of elephant species that militate against the issuance of re-export certificates for raw ivory.

Consequently, in line with Regulation (EC) No 338/97, the Commission recommends that Member States should, as a temporary measure and from 1 July 2017, not issue re-export certificates for raw ivory, except in exceptional cases, where the Management Authority of the Member State concerned is satisfied that the item:

| 1. | is part of a genuine exchange of cultural goods between reputable institutions (i.e. museums); |
| --- | --- |

1.

is part of a genuine exchange of cultural goods between reputable institutions (i.e. museums);

| 2. | is an heirloom moving as part of a family relocation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

is an heirloom moving as part of a family relocation;

| 3. | is being moved for enforcement, scientific or educational purposes. |
| --- | --- |

3.

is being moved for enforcement, scientific or educational purposes.

In any such exceptional cases, it is recommended that Management Authorities follow the guidance outlined in this document in relation to acquiring suitable evidence of legal origin of the specimens (Annex I to this document), marking (Annex II) and, where relevant, coordination with other Member States and third countries (sub-section (iii)).

(ii)   Guidance on re-export of worked ivory

Contrary to raw ivory, ‘worked ivory’ encompasses many different types of specimens. This includes items which have been in trade legally for decades (for example musical instruments or antiques) and it is not clear whether a complete suspension of re-export for such items would have a tangible impact against international illegal ivory trade. In view of the increase in re-exports of worked ivory from the EU in recent years, there is however a need to strengthen scrutiny on the implementation of the current rules.

In all cases, it is imperative that EU Member States exercise a high level of scrutiny in relation to applications for re-export of worked ivory, to make sure that they only deliver the relevant documents when the conditions set out under EU law are met which guarantee that the ivory is of legal origin. With a view to avoiding that ivory items which do not fulfil the required conditions are exported, it is recommended that the conditions for issuing such re-export certificates are strictly interpreted.

In order to assess the conditions under which such trade can be authorised, it is recommended that EU Member States apply the guidance on the ‘evidence to demonstrate legal acquisition’ contained in Annex I to the present document and on ‘marking, registration and other requirements for the issuance of certificates’ contained in Annex II.

It is particularly important for the applicant applying for the re-export certificate to demonstrate that the specimens were acquired before the date on which CITES became applicable to the items concerned. If such evidence cannot be provided by the applicant, then no certificate should be delivered.

If issued, the certificate should describe the item concerned with sufficient detail so that the certificate can only be used for the specimen concerned. In addition, and where legislation allows, Member States may consider collating, verifying and recording identities of the applicant and, where possible, of the purchaser (e.g. by keeping a copy of their identification documents).

(iii)   Coordination within and between EU Member States as well as with 3rd countries

Where regional/local CITES Management Authorities are responsible for the issuance of CITES documentation, it is recommended that Member States ensure that the regional authorities report to the central CITES Management Authority regarding all submitted applications for re-export certificates/intra-EU certificates. This would ensure proper coordinated verification of legal acquisition and consistency in the assessment of applications. This could be supported by the establishment of national databases to store relevant information.

Where an intra-EU certificate issued by an EU Member State is presented as evidence of legal acquisition for the purposes of a re-export certificate application, the Member State that issued the intra-EU trade certificate should be consulted regarding its validity. This should apply for all applications involving ivory, but particularly in the case of raw items.

Furthermore, additional restrictions/controls may apply in relation to re-export to certain countries/territories that have introduced stricter domestic measures in relation to trade in ivory, such as mainland China, Hong Kong SAR and the United States of America (USA). Before issuing a re-export certificates for ivory, the Member State concerned should inform the CITES authorities of the country of destination so that the country of destination can verify that the importation of that specimen is in line with existing regulations.

4.   Guidance for the implementation of EU law for intra-EU trade in ivory

It is recommended that EU Member States follow the guidance outlined below, based on current best practices in EU Member States, for the assessment of applications for certificates for intra-EU trade in ivory and the interpretation of the provisions of EU law on intra-EU trade in ivory ‘worked specimens’.

Since the CITES decision to ban international ivory trade in 1989, the demand for ivory in Europe has considerably decreased. EU Member States have not been identified under CITES as important destination markets for ivory of illegal origin. Most of the intra-EU trade consists of ivory antiques. There have been however instances of illegal trade in ivory items occurring within the EU. Different approaches also exist in between Member States in the handling of applications for certificates for commercial use of ivory specimens within the EU and in relation to intra-EU trade in ivory ‘worked specimens’. The EU has a responsibility to ensure commercial use of ivory in the EU is strictly controlled and regulated, as per CITES Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP17) and Regulation (EC) No 338/97. Increased vigilance and controls over intra-EU trade in ivory items are therefore necessary, in relation to applications for intra-EU trade in ivory as well as to ascertain the legality of intra-EU trade in ‘worked specimens’.

In this context, and in view of the different regimes applying to each of these cases, it is recommended that Member States follow the specific guidance below for each of the following cases:

| — | intra-EU trade in ivory items (point (i) below), |
| --- | --- |

—

intra-EU trade in ivory items (point (i) below),

| — | the specific cases of intra-EU trade of ‘worked specimens’ (point (ii) below). |
| --- | --- |

—

the specific cases of intra-EU trade of ‘worked specimens’ (point (ii) below).

(i)   Guidance on the intra-EU trade of ivory items

Intra-EU trade of Annex A specimens is generally prohibited under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97. Article 8(3) authorises Member States to derogate from this prohibition if certain conditions (listed in subparagraphs (a) to (h)) are met. However, the use of the term ‘may’ in Article 8(3) makes it clear that Member States are not obliged to grant a certificate for intra-EU trade when those conditions are met (except if otherwise required by Union law, such as in application of the principle of proportionality). When deciding about granting or not granting a certificate, the authority has to use its discretionary powers in an appropriate manner.

The consequence is that Article 8(3) cannot be considered as conferring a right to a certificate for intra-EU trade for any applicant, even when one of the conditions laid down in subparagraphs (a) to (h) is met. Moreover, Article 8(3) is subject to the precautionary principle and, as discussed above, the burden of proof for demonstrating the legitimacy and consistency of a transaction with the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 will therefore rest with the applicant.

When receiving an application for commercial use of ivory within the EU under Article 8(3), a Member State is entitled under Union law to refuse to grant a certificate, even when one of the conditions laid down in subparagraphs (a) to (h) is met, provided the refusal is compatible with the principle of proportionality (i.e. the refusal is appropriate to protect species of wild fauna or flora or to guarantee their conservation, and the refusal does not go beyond that which is necessary to achieve that aim). The Commission and the Group of Experts of the Competent CITES Management Authorities are of the view that this will be the case where the legitimacy and consistency of a transaction with the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 have not been conclusively demonstrated by the applicant.

Member States have a responsibility to avoid issuing certificates which could facilitate any illegal activities and should therefore handle those applications for intra-EU trade in a way to minimise this risk to the maximum extent possible. Member States are recommended to ensure maximum scrutiny in handling applications for intra-EU certificates and interpret strictly the conditions for issuing such certificates, especially for raw ivory.

To this end, it is recommended that EU Member States apply the guidance on the ‘evidence to demonstrate legal acquisition’ contained in Annex I to the present document and on ‘marking, registration and other requirements for the issuance of certificates’ contained in Annex II.

A key element under Article 8(3)(a) (i.e. specimens ‘acquired in, or (...) introduced into, the Community before the provisions relating to species listed in Appendix I to the Convention or in Annex C1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3626/82 (2) or in Annex A became applicable to the specimens’), is that an applicant applying for an intra-EU certificate must demonstrate that the specimens were acquired or introduced into the EU before 18 January 1990 for African Elephant and 1 July 1975 for Asian Elephants. If such evidence cannot be provided by the applicant, then no certificate should be delivered.

If delivered, the certificate should describe the item concerned with sufficient detail so that it is clear that the certificate can only be used for the specimen concerned — this is especially important for raw ivory which is likely to have fewer identifying features. In addition, and where legislation (10) allows, Member States may consider collating, verifying and recording identities of the applicant and of the purchaser (e.g. by keeping a copy of their identification documents). A condition specific to intra-EU trade in raw ivory could also be laid down which obliges the seller to inform the authorities of the purchaser's identity.

When applications for intra-EU trade of ivory are made under Article 8(3)(c), Member States are reminded that, as the import of ivory (as personal effects, notably hunting trophies) is only possible for non-commercial reasons, there is no possibility for their owners to be granted a certificate for a commercial purpose within the Union under Article 8(3)(c).

(ii)   Specific Guidance on the intra-EU trade of ivory ‘worked specimens’

The EU Regulation contains specific provisions governing intra-EU trade of ‘worked specimens that were acquired more than 50 years previously’, defined in Article 2w of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 as ‘specimens that were significantly altered from their natural raw state for jewellery, adornment, art, utility or musical instruments, more than 50 years before the entry into force of the Regulation, i.e. before 3 March 1947, and that have been, to the satisfaction of the management authority of the Member State concerned, acquired in such conditions. Such specimens shall be considered as worked only if they are clearly into one of the aforementioned categories and require no further carving, crafting or manufacture to affect their purpose’. ‘Worked specimens’ as defined by the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations are also often referred to as ‘antiques’. However, it is important to note that antiques acquired before 1947, but that remain substantially unaltered from their natural state do not qualify as ‘worked specimens’ under Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

The commercial use of ‘worked specimens’ in the EU is regulated under Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and Article 62(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006. If an item fulfils the conditions under Article 2(w) of the Council Regulation to be considered a worked specimen, then no certificate is needed for its commercial use within the EU.

In order to ensure a common interpretation of the ‘worked specimen’ definition across EU Member States, the European Commission, in cooperation with the EU Member States, developed internal guidance on this topic (11). This guidance, which is not specific to ivory, covers aspects such as acceptable proof that the item was acquired prior to 3 March 1947; typical examples of items falling under the definition ‘significantly altered from their natural raw state’ and the categories of ‘jewellery’, ‘adornment’ etc.; and the renovation and ‘reworking’ of specimens.

Overall, it is recommended that Member States interpret the definition of worked specimens narrowly, as per the following steps:

| — | the owner of a specimen who wishes to sell it has first to demonstrate that the specimen was acquired ‘50 years before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 338/97’, i.e. before 3 March 1947, |
| --- | --- |

—

the owner of a specimen who wishes to sell it has first to demonstrate that the specimen was acquired ‘50 years before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 338/97’, i.e. before 3 March 1947,

| — | secondly, the fact that an ivory tusk is simply mounted on a plaque, shield or other type of base, without any other alteration of its natural state should not be sufficient to consider the product a ‘worked specimen’ under Article 2(w) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, the fact that an ivory tusk is simply mounted on a plaque, shield or other type of base, without any other alteration of its natural state should not be sufficient to consider the product a ‘worked specimen’ under Article 2(w) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97,

| — | thirdly, the requirement under Article 2(w) that the alteration was carried out for ‘jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments’ should also be given strict and thorough consideration, as it appears that in recent cases the artistic nature of the alteration (such as significant carving, engraving, insertion or attachment of artistic or utility objects, etc.) was not clear, in which case the conditions in Article 2(w) were not met, |
| --- | --- |

—

thirdly, the requirement under Article 2(w) that the alteration was carried out for ‘jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments’ should also be given strict and thorough consideration, as it appears that in recent cases the artistic nature of the alteration (such as significant carving, engraving, insertion or attachment of artistic or utility objects, etc.) was not clear, in which case the conditions in Article 2(w) were not met,

| — | the guidance document produced by the European Commission on ‘worked specimens’ should be consulted for further guidance on interpretation of the term. |
| --- | --- |

—

the guidance document produced by the European Commission on ‘worked specimens’ should be consulted for further guidance on interpretation of the term.

In addition, although intra-EU certificates are not required for commercial trade of ‘worked specimens’ within the EU, it is recommended that Member States monitor their domestic markets of antique ivory, including carrying out regular checks to see if traders have evidence of the age and/or origin of antique ivory for sale, and consider making it mandatory for traders to declare the age and origin of antique ivory items for sale, both on websites and in physical stalls/shops.

It should be finally noted that the re-export of ‘worked specimens’ from the EU requires the issuance of a re-export certificate, in line with Article 5(6)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97. It is recommended that the Member States use the guidance in section 3(ii) when assessing applications for re-export certificates for such items.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1).

(2)  The reference to ivory in this guidance document relates to ivory only from elephant.

(3)  Pursuant to Article 8(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

(4)  See Article 5(6)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97. The CITES Convention applied from 26 February 1976 to African elephants with the listing of the species in Appendix III by Ghana; Asian elephants were listed in CITES Appendix I on 1 July 1975.

(5)  Nellemann, C., Henriksen, R., Raxter, P., Ash, N., Mrema, E. (Eds). (2014). The Environmental Crime Crisis — Threats to Sustainable Development from Illegal Exploitation and Trade in Wildlife and Forest Resources. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal.

(6)  The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) was set up by CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP17) on Trade in elephant specimens, with the objectives to, inter alia, ‘i) measuring and recording levels and trends, and changes in levels and trends, of illegal elephant killing and trade in ivory’. ETIS produces a comprehensive report on worldwide ivory seizures before each CITES Conference of Parties. The latest reports, carried out in 2016 for CITES CoP17, are available here:

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/WorkingDocs/E-CoP17-57-06-R1.pdf

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/17/WorkingDocs/E-CoP17-57-06-R1-Add.pdf

(7)  For 50 % of the ETIS records, CITES Parties did not specify weight of ivory seized.

(8)  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0087&from=EN

(9)  It is recommended that EU Member States use the definition of ‘raw ivory’ contained in CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP17), according to which:

| ‘a) | the term “raw ivory” shall include all whole elephant tusks, polished or unpolished and in any form whatsoever, and all elephant ivory in cut pieces, polished or unpolished and howsoever changed from its original form, except for “worked ivory”; and |
| --- | --- |

‘a)

the term “raw ivory” shall include all whole elephant tusks, polished or unpolished and in any form whatsoever, and all elephant ivory in cut pieces, polished or unpolished and howsoever changed from its original form, except for “worked ivory”; and

| b) | “worked ivory” shall be interpreted to mean ivory that has been carved, shaped or processed, either fully or partially, but shall not include whole tusks in any form, except where the whole surface has been carved’. |
| --- | --- |

b)

“worked ivory” shall be interpreted to mean ivory that has been carved, shaped or processed, either fully or partially, but shall not include whole tusks in any form, except where the whole surface has been carved’.

(10)  Especially laws on protection of personal data.

(11)  See C(2017) 3108.

---

ANNEX I

Evidence to demonstrate legal acquisition

General considerations

For both re-export and intra-EU certificates, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CITES authority in the EU Member State concerned that the conditions for the issuance of the documents are met, and especially that the ivory specimens were legally acquired (1).

As applications for re-export/intra-EU certificates may differ significantly (in terms of the circumstances of original acquisition of the ivory, the quantity to be re-exported/traded, and the declared origin/age of the specimens), Member States will generally need to assess the evidence furnished by the applicant on a case-by-case basis.

While it is clear that legal acquisition needs to be demonstrated in all cases, Member States should consider following a risk-based approach when assessing applications for the re-export of/intra-EU trade in ivory. Transactions may give rise to varying degrees of scrutiny depending on the quantity of ivory to be re-exported/traded; the form of the ivory (e.g. antique, worked or raw); the circumstances in which the ivory was originally acquired (e.g. part of a commercial transaction or as a gift/inheritance); and the date on which the original acquisition took place. Member States will be required to use their judgment when determining, based on the nature of the transaction, the type/quantity of evidence required in support of the application.

Member States should subject transactions for intra-EU trade in raw ivory to a greater level of scrutiny, for example, in the case of applications involving unworked tusk(s) or larger unworked ivory pieces, in particular where an application is for more than one whole tusk/item. Member States may also consider applying greater scrutiny to intra-EU certificate applications for raw ivory that was acquired more recently or as part of a commercial transaction (as opposed to a gift or inheritance).

It is important to note that the type of proof of legal origin will depend on the manner of acquisition. For example:

| — | If the ivory item was imported by the applicant him/herself before entry into force of the Convention, the applicant may be required to prove that he/she lived or worked in the country of export. Old photographs, contracts, extracts from a birth certificate, extracts from the population register or a declaration of him/herself and/or other family members may be accepted as proof that the applicant lived abroad. The applicant will also need to prove that the ivory item was legally acquired/imported into the EU (see Types of evidence below). |
| --- | --- |

—

If the ivory item was imported by the applicant him/herself before entry into force of the Convention, the applicant may be required to prove that he/she lived or worked in the country of export. Old photographs, contracts, extracts from a birth certificate, extracts from the population register or a declaration of him/herself and/or other family members may be accepted as proof that the applicant lived abroad. The applicant will also need to prove that the ivory item was legally acquired/imported into the EU (see Types of evidence below).

| — | If the ivory item was purchased in the EU, the applicant must demonstrate that the item was legally acquired, or that the piece meets the requirements of a pre-1947 worked specimen (see Types of evidence below). |
| --- | --- |

—

If the ivory item was purchased in the EU, the applicant must demonstrate that the item was legally acquired, or that the piece meets the requirements of a pre-1947 worked specimen (see Types of evidence below).

Types of evidence

The following evidence should generally be preferred in support of re-export and intra-EU certificate applications:

| — | Original CITES import permit issued to the applicant and endorsed by Customs or original import (e.g. Customs) documents. The document(s) should be verified, if possible, against information in relevant databases, e.g. national Customs databases, databases of issued CITES permits. |
| --- | --- |

—

Original CITES import permit issued to the applicant and endorsed by Customs or original import (e.g. Customs) documents. The document(s) should be verified, if possible, against information in relevant databases, e.g. national Customs databases, databases of issued CITES permits.

| — | Intra-EU trade certificate. In such a case, the issuing EU Member State should be consulted to verify the validity of the certificate concerned. Where the information provided on the intra-EU certificate is unclear, or there are doubts/concerns as to the validity of the certificate/legality of the ivory, additional information should be requested from the applicant and/or issuing authority. Additional evidence might be requested if, for example, the certificate lacks identification markers (e.g. photographs, descriptive details, information on the weight/length of the tusks) or is especially old. Member States may request any evidence providing additional details of the item and its background not already noted on the intra-EU certificate. A receipt or a deed of transfer could also be requested, especially if the certificate is transaction specific, to show that the current owner acquired the specimen directly from the certificate holder. |
| --- | --- |

—

Intra-EU trade certificate. In such a case, the issuing EU Member State should be consulted to verify the validity of the certificate concerned. Where the information provided on the intra-EU certificate is unclear, or there are doubts/concerns as to the validity of the certificate/legality of the ivory, additional information should be requested from the applicant and/or issuing authority. Additional evidence might be requested if, for example, the certificate lacks identification markers (e.g. photographs, descriptive details, information on the weight/length of the tusks) or is especially old. Member States may request any evidence providing additional details of the item and its background not already noted on the intra-EU certificate. A receipt or a deed of transfer could also be requested, especially if the certificate is transaction specific, to show that the current owner acquired the specimen directly from the certificate holder.

| — | Results of radiocarbon dating/isotope analysis to determine age (also origin) of the specimen (2), bearing in mind that determining the age is not sufficient in itself to prove legal acquisition. |
| --- | --- |

—

Results of radiocarbon dating/isotope analysis to determine age (also origin) of the specimen (2), bearing in mind that determining the age is not sufficient in itself to prove legal acquisition.

| — | Expert opinion, in the form of a determination of age by a recognised, independent expert, for example, an individual affiliated to a university/research institution, a consultant to court/approved by judicial process, or an approved/recognised expert (3). Expert opinions may be considered as satisfactory evidence for both worked and unworked ivory (e.g. where forensic analysis cannot be used). For antique worked ivory, the age determination may be made based on the style of carving and crafting techniques. |
| --- | --- |

—

Expert opinion, in the form of a determination of age by a recognised, independent expert, for example, an individual affiliated to a university/research institution, a consultant to court/approved by judicial process, or an approved/recognised expert (3). Expert opinions may be considered as satisfactory evidence for both worked and unworked ivory (e.g. where forensic analysis cannot be used). For antique worked ivory, the age determination may be made based on the style of carving and crafting techniques.

Where the evidence described above is not available, applicants should be required to present a combination of other forms of evidence to demonstrate legal acquisition (see other forms of evidence below). Member States should ask the applicant to furnish as many different types of evidence as possible in support of their application. As noted above under General considerations, the amount and type of evidence that will constitute satisfactory proof of acquisition will depend on the nature of the application and associated risk. Where commercial quantities of raw ivory are the subject of an intra-EU certificate application, Member States should consider accepting only the evidence listed under the first three bullet points above.

Other forms of evidence that may constitute satisfactory proof of legal acquisition include (preferably a combination of) the following:

| — | Original CITES export permit from the country of export or original export (e.g. Customs) document. The document(s) should be verified, if possible, against information in relevant databases. |
| --- | --- |

—

Original CITES export permit from the country of export or original export (e.g. Customs) document. The document(s) should be verified, if possible, against information in relevant databases.

| — | For ‘worked specimens’ containing ivory, a document from an approved/recognised expert. |
| --- | --- |

—

For ‘worked specimens’ containing ivory, a document from an approved/recognised expert.

| — | A receipt or invoice, a deed of gift or inheritance documents, such as a will. |
| --- | --- |

—

A receipt or invoice, a deed of gift or inheritance documents, such as a will.

| — | Old photographs of the ivory item (with a date, recognisable person, or at the place of origin), an old hunting permit (or other documents relating to a hunt), insurance documents, letters, or old public documents (such as newspaper articles or other original reports/publications that provide evidence of the origin of the specimens). |
| --- | --- |

—

Old photographs of the ivory item (with a date, recognisable person, or at the place of origin), an old hunting permit (or other documents relating to a hunt), insurance documents, letters, or old public documents (such as newspaper articles or other original reports/publications that provide evidence of the origin of the specimens).

| — | Other ancillary evidence to support the explanation of legal acquisition such as proof of work service of the person who acquired the specimen (e.g. in Africa) or copies of passport stamps. |
| --- | --- |

—

Other ancillary evidence to support the explanation of legal acquisition such as proof of work service of the person who acquired the specimen (e.g. in Africa) or copies of passport stamps.

| — | A witness statement/affidavit or signed declaration from the owner. Member States may consider requesting that the applicant provides an affidavit in support of the certificate issued, stating that they are aware of the consequences of a false declaration. A witness statement/affidavit should still be supported by other evidence such as photographs or receipts/invoices. |
| --- | --- |

—

A witness statement/affidavit or signed declaration from the owner. Member States may consider requesting that the applicant provides an affidavit in support of the certificate issued, stating that they are aware of the consequences of a false declaration. A witness statement/affidavit should still be supported by other evidence such as photographs or receipts/invoices.

| — | For worked specimens or music instruments manufactured in the EU, a confirmation by the manufacturer or an expert that the instrument was produced on the territory of an EU Member State before the date of the relevant CITES listing. |
| --- | --- |

—

For worked specimens or music instruments manufactured in the EU, a confirmation by the manufacturer or an expert that the instrument was produced on the territory of an EU Member State before the date of the relevant CITES listing.

Where, in light of evidence furnished by an applicant in support of a re-export/intra-EU certificate application, there remain doubts as to the legal acquisition of the ivory concerned, Member States should consider consulting an independent expert or requiring forensic analysis to verify the age of the specimen; the cost should be borne by the applicant.

---

(1)  See Article 5(3) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 for re-export certificates; and, for intra-EU trade certificates, Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 in combination with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.

(2)  The UNODC Guidelines on Methods and Procedures for Ivory Sampling and Laboratory Analysis provides an overview of laboratory test options available as well as guidelines on taking samples for testing, including a list of equipment and materials needed for ivory sampling (see UNODC. (2014) Guidelines on Methods and Procedures for Ivory Sampling and Laboratory Analysis. United Nations, New York, especially 14.2.2 Isotopes (page 30 et seq. and 46); available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/Wildlife/Guidelines_Ivory.pdf).

Cf. as well the website www.ivoryid.org

(3)  If using expert opinion from auctioneers, potential conflicts of interest may arise, which needs to be carefully considered.

---

ANNEX II

Marking, registration and other requirements for the issuance of certificates

Permanent marking of ivory products is not mandatory under EU law before an intra-EU certificate is granted, but this is done already by some Member States. In addition, import permits and re-export certificates can only be issued by EU Member States for some ivory products if they are marked (see Article 64(1)(d) and Article 65(1) of Regulation (EC) No 865/2006) and CITES Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP 17) also encourages the marking of ‘whole tusks of any size, and cut pieces of ivory that are both 20 cm or more in length and one kilogram or more in weight’.

In that context, it is recommended that Member States consider permanently marking: (i) whole tusks of any size, and (ii) cut pieces of ivory that are both 20 cm or more in length and one kilogram or more in weight. Marking allows a certificate to be connected to the ivory items concerned and improves traceability in the system.

It is recommended that such marking be carried out in accordance with CITES Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP 17): ‘whole tusks of any size, and cut pieces of ivory that are both 20 cm or more in length and one kilogram or more in weight, be marked by means of punch-dies, indelible ink, or other form of permanent marking, using the following formula: country-of-origin two-letter ISO code, the last two digits of the year/the serial number for the year/and the weight in kilograms (e.g. KE 00/127/14). It is recognized that different Parties have different systems for marking and may apply different practices for specifying the serial number and the year (which may be the year of registration or recovery, for example), but that all systems must result in a unique number for each piece of marked ivory. This number should be placed at the “lip mark”, in the case of whole tusks, and highlighted with a flash of colour.’

The Resolution mentions that marking should indicate the country of origin; if this country is not known when an EU Member State operates the marking, the ISO code indicated should be the one of the country of marking. Member States may consider it appropriate to stipulate that the ivory holder/owner covers the costs of permanent marking.

Once the item has been permanently marked, the code should be entered into an electronic database to facilitate future verification together with the certificate number and all relevant information such as length, weight and pre-Convention status. Information should be recorded at the national level, where possible. If information is recorded at the regional/local level, there should be some mechanism for information sharing with/oversight by the central (national) CITES authority. After marking, it is also advised that the items be photo-documented and the records and photographs maintained together.

Member States have reported problems in verifying the validity of intra-EU certificates, which make it difficult to confirm the identity of the specimen concerned (for raw tusks). To address these issues, Member States are advised to:

| — | Require photo documentation of the ivory specimens (especially raw whole tusks) and, where permitted by national systems, to ensure that the photographs are affixed/appended to the intra-EU certificate concerned. The photographs should be scanned and kept with the records of the certificate issued. Features that could be documented (and which would assist in identification) include characteristic colouration, cracks or other damage; curvature of the tusk; and the base (e.g. cleanly cut or frayed). Photographs of the entire tusk and of the base would be useful. Should the tusk contain an engraving, a photograph that shows details and position on the tusk should also be included. Photographs of the ivory for which a certificate is issued is particularly important where the ivory has not been marked. |
| --- | --- |

—

Require photo documentation of the ivory specimens (especially raw whole tusks) and, where permitted by national systems, to ensure that the photographs are affixed/appended to the intra-EU certificate concerned. The photographs should be scanned and kept with the records of the certificate issued. Features that could be documented (and which would assist in identification) include characteristic colouration, cracks or other damage; curvature of the tusk; and the base (e.g. cleanly cut or frayed). Photographs of the entire tusk and of the base would be useful. Should the tusk contain an engraving, a photograph that shows details and position on the tusk should also be included. Photographs of the ivory for which a certificate is issued is particularly important where the ivory has not been marked.

| — | Include details on the certificate of how the weight and length of the ivory item were measured, as well as the circumference at the base. Regarding the weight, relevant information includes when the weight was determined (was the item weighed at the time of issuing the certificate, or has older information on weight been used?) and whether the weight includes any attachments to the tusk (such as a cap over the base or an attachment to fix the tusk to a wall) which may have been removed for subsequent weighing. Regarding the length, relevant information includes whether the length specified is the outer or inner length, and whether this is from tip to base (or some other measurement). |
| --- | --- |

—

Include details on the certificate of how the weight and length of the ivory item were measured, as well as the circumference at the base. Regarding the weight, relevant information includes when the weight was determined (was the item weighed at the time of issuing the certificate, or has older information on weight been used?) and whether the weight includes any attachments to the tusk (such as a cap over the base or an attachment to fix the tusk to a wall) which may have been removed for subsequent weighing. Regarding the length, relevant information includes whether the length specified is the outer or inner length, and whether this is from tip to base (or some other measurement).

| — | Record both the number of items concerned and the quantity in weight (kg) (as sizes of items vary considerably). |
| --- | --- |

—

Record both the number of items concerned and the quantity in weight (kg) (as sizes of items vary considerably).

---

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/15

---

COMMISSION NOTICE

Guidance on Worked Specimens under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations

(2017/C 154/07)

This guidance is intended to assist EU Member States and stakeholders in assessing what may or may not qualify as ‘worked specimens that were acquired more than 50 years previously’ (‘worked specimens’) under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations (1), and thus should be helpful for deciding when to apply for worked specimens the general derogation from the need to get a certificate for intra-EU trade for specimens of species listed in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

This guidance may also be applied in cases of introduction into or (re)exportation from the EU, where conditions for issuance of import or export permits/re-export certificates for worked specimens of species listed in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 are less restrictive than for other specimens of these species (2).

Because of the wide variety and range of items that may fall under the definition of worked specimens, this guidance is intended only as a guide to assist in assessing whether the worked specimens definition may apply. In case of any doubt about whether or not an item qualifies as a worked specimen, an application for a commercial use certificate for intra-EU trade should be made to the CITES Management Authority.

This is a guidance document prepared by the Commission and unanimously endorsed by the group of experts of the competent CITES management authorities.

This guidance document constitutes an expression of how the Commission interprets Regulation (EC) No 338/97, and of measures it considers to constitute best practice. It is intended to assist national authorities, citizens and businesses in the application of EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law.

Some EU Member States and other non-EU countries may apply stricter national controls on items which may or may not be used for commercial purposes. The rules in place in the country of destination should therefore be checked before moving a worked specimen.

1.   Introduction

| 1.1. | The definition of ‘worked specimen’ is given in Article 2 (w) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97:
  ‘“worked specimens that were acquired more than 50 years previously” shall mean specimens that were significantly altered from their natural raw state for jewellery, adornment, art, utility or musical instruments, more than 50 years before the entry into force of this Regulation (3) and that have been, to the satisfaction of the management authority of the Member State concerned, acquired in such conditions. Such specimens shall be considered as worked only if they are clearly in one of the aforementioned categories and require no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect their purpose.’.
  Specimens qualifying as worked specimens are commonly referred to as ‘antiques’.
  This guidance is applicable to all cases where the definition of worked specimens applies under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, namely:






  — | Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on introduction into the Community, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.

The definition of ‘worked specimen’ is given in Article 2 (w) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97:

‘“worked specimens that were acquired more than 50 years previously” shall mean specimens that were significantly altered from their natural raw state for jewellery, adornment, art, utility or musical instruments, more than 50 years before the entry into force of this Regulation (3) and that have been, to the satisfaction of the management authority of the Member State concerned, acquired in such conditions. Such specimens shall be considered as worked only if they are clearly in one of the aforementioned categories and require no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect their purpose.’.

Specimens qualifying as worked specimens are commonly referred to as ‘antiques’.

This guidance is applicable to all cases where the definition of worked specimens applies under the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, namely:

—

Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on introduction into the Community,

| — | Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on export and re-export from the Community, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on export and re-export from the Community,

| — | Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on provisions relating to the control of commercial activities within the EU, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on provisions relating to the control of commercial activities within the EU,

| — | Article 62(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (4) on general exemptions from Article 8(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 62(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 (4) on general exemptions from Article 8(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

| 1.2. | According to the abovementioned definition of ‘worked specimen’, the management authority of the Member State concerned must be satisfied that the specimen was acquired in such conditions that meet the definition of a worked specimen.
  The definition can be broken into the following criteria, all of which need to be assessed:






  — | the item has been manufactured/worked prior to 3 March 1947, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2.

According to the abovementioned definition of ‘worked specimen’, the management authority of the Member State concerned must be satisfied that the specimen was acquired in such conditions that meet the definition of a worked specimen.

The definition can be broken into the following criteria, all of which need to be assessed:

—

the item has been manufactured/worked prior to 3 March 1947,

| — | the item has been significantly altered from its natural state, |
| --- | --- |

—

the item has been significantly altered from its natural state,

| — | the item clearly falls into one of the categories — jewellery, adornment, art, utility, musical instrument and requires no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect its purpose, |
| --- | --- |

—

the item clearly falls into one of the categories — jewellery, adornment, art, utility, musical instrument and requires no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect its purpose,

| — | the Management Authority of the Member State concerned is satisfied that the item has been acquired in such conditions. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Management Authority of the Member State concerned is satisfied that the item has been acquired in such conditions.

This guidance addresses these criteria by answering the following questions:

| (a) | how to assess whether a worked specimen has been manufactured/worked prior to 3 March 1947; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

how to assess whether a worked specimen has been manufactured/worked prior to 3 March 1947;

| (b) | how to assess whether a specimen has been significantly altered from its natural raw state for jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments and requires no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect its purpose; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

how to assess whether a specimen has been significantly altered from its natural raw state for jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments and requires no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect its purpose;

| (c) | how to assess whether the degree of renovation is acceptable for a specimen to still meet the criterion ‘require no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect their purpose’; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

how to assess whether the degree of renovation is acceptable for a specimen to still meet the criterion ‘require no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect their purpose’;

| (d) | how to assess whether the Management Authority of the Member State concerned can be satisfied that the item has been acquired in such conditions that meet the definition of a ‘worked specimen’. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

how to assess whether the Management Authority of the Member State concerned can be satisfied that the item has been acquired in such conditions that meet the definition of a ‘worked specimen’.

2.   Assessing whether a worked specimen has been manufactured/worked prior to 3 March 1947

| 2.1. | The specimen must have been manufactured/worked more than 50 years before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, i.e. prior to 3 March 1947. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

The specimen must have been manufactured/worked more than 50 years before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, i.e. prior to 3 March 1947.

| 2.2. | Specimens that have been reworked prior to 3 March 1947 may be considered as worked specimens for the purpose of the derogation if they meet the other conditions of the worked specimen's definition. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Specimens that have been reworked prior to 3 March 1947 may be considered as worked specimens for the purpose of the derogation if they meet the other conditions of the worked specimen's definition.

| 2.3. | A specimen which was worked or reworked after 1947 would not meet the definition even if the specimen could be dated to before 3 March 1947. For example, an ivory billiard ball that has been reworked into a walking stick handle would not meet the derogation if it was reworked in the 1960s even if the ivory could be dated to pre-1947. Another example would be timber that may be dated to pre-1947, but the specimen was worked after 3 March 1947. |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

A specimen which was worked or reworked after 1947 would not meet the definition even if the specimen could be dated to before 3 March 1947. For example, an ivory billiard ball that has been reworked into a walking stick handle would not meet the derogation if it was reworked in the 1960s even if the ivory could be dated to pre-1947. Another example would be timber that may be dated to pre-1947, but the specimen was worked after 3 March 1947.

| 2.4. | The person who acquired the specimen(s) before 3 March 1947 does not have to be the current owner. |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

The person who acquired the specimen(s) before 3 March 1947 does not have to be the current owner.

3.   Assessing whether specimens have been ‘significantly altered from their natural raw state for jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments’

| 3.1. | The purpose of the alteration of the specimen must clearly be for jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments. In addition, the specimen should not require any further carving, crafting or manufacture for it to effect its purpose. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

The purpose of the alteration of the specimen must clearly be for jewellery, adornment, art, utility, or musical instruments. In addition, the specimen should not require any further carving, crafting or manufacture for it to effect its purpose.

| 3.2. | These conditions can only be assessed on a case by case basis (see also Section 4). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

These conditions can only be assessed on a case by case basis (see also Section 4).

| 3.3. | In order to qualify as a worked specimen, a part of an animal (such as teeth, tusks, horns, antlers, skin, bones or shells) have to be significantly altered from its natural raw state, such as by carving, engraving, or manufacture into another form. |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

In order to qualify as a worked specimen, a part of an animal (such as teeth, tusks, horns, antlers, skin, bones or shells) have to be significantly altered from its natural raw state, such as by carving, engraving, or manufacture into another form.

| 3.4. | Polishing or fixing a specimen to another material, such as mounting, does not qualify the item as worked specimen. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.

Polishing or fixing a specimen to another material, such as mounting, does not qualify the item as worked specimen.

| 3.5. | Any alteration to a specimen should be irreversible. There must also be clearly no interest or intent to use the specimen for other purposes. |
| --- | --- |

3.5.

Any alteration to a specimen should be irreversible. There must also be clearly no interest or intent to use the specimen for other purposes.

| 3.6. | For elephant ivory, this means that raw tusks, or pieces of tusks (which may be polished, but not carved or engraved), whether or not attached to the skull, do not qualify as worked specimens (5). For a tusk or part of a tusk to qualify as worked, the specimen must have been subject to significant carving or engraving over at least 90 % of its surface. Light carving, engraving, or surface markings where the form of the tusk remains substantially the same as its natural raw state would not be deemed worked. |
| --- | --- |

3.6.

For elephant ivory, this means that raw tusks, or pieces of tusks (which may be polished, but not carved or engraved), whether or not attached to the skull, do not qualify as worked specimens (5). For a tusk or part of a tusk to qualify as worked, the specimen must have been subject to significant carving or engraving over at least 90 % of its surface. Light carving, engraving, or surface markings where the form of the tusk remains substantially the same as its natural raw state would not be deemed worked.

| 3.7. | For a rhino horn or part of it, light carving, engraving, or surface markings where the form of the horn remains substantially the same as its natural raw state would not be deemed worked. |
| --- | --- |

3.7.

For a rhino horn or part of it, light carving, engraving, or surface markings where the form of the horn remains substantially the same as its natural raw state would not be deemed worked.

| 3.8. | Rhino horn specimens such as whole or part horns with clocks, inkwells, barometers or other objects inserted in them, where the horn remains substantially unaltered and/or where insufficient artistic merit can be independently demonstrated in accordance with the paragraph 5.6 of this guidance, do not qualify as worked specimens. The EU Guidance document on the Export, re-export and intra-Union trade of rhinoceros horns (6) should also be taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

3.8.

Rhino horn specimens such as whole or part horns with clocks, inkwells, barometers or other objects inserted in them, where the horn remains substantially unaltered and/or where insufficient artistic merit can be independently demonstrated in accordance with the paragraph 5.6 of this guidance, do not qualify as worked specimens. The EU Guidance document on the Export, re-export and intra-Union trade of rhinoceros horns (6) should also be taken into account.

| 3.9. | Skulls, skeletons (whether wholly or partially articulated) or individual bones which have been cleaned, primed, polished, mounted or otherwise prepared would not be deemed worked specimens. Skulls and horns that have been mounted (including when horns are attached to a skull), on a wooden plaque or base for example, would not qualify as worked specimens. |
| --- | --- |

3.9.

Skulls, skeletons (whether wholly or partially articulated) or individual bones which have been cleaned, primed, polished, mounted or otherwise prepared would not be deemed worked specimens. Skulls and horns that have been mounted (including when horns are attached to a skull), on a wooden plaque or base for example, would not qualify as worked specimens.

| 3.10. | In general, stuffed (taxidermied) animals — for example mounted and stuffed birds — would meet the condition of being ‘significantly altered from their natural raw state’ within the worked specimens' definition (see European Court of Justice, case C-154-2). |
| --- | --- |

3.10.

In general, stuffed (taxidermied) animals — for example mounted and stuffed birds — would meet the condition of being ‘significantly altered from their natural raw state’ within the worked specimens' definition (see European Court of Justice, case C-154-2).

| 3.11. | Appendix I of this guidance provides illustrative examples of specimens which, although acquired in their finished state before 3 March 1947, would not qualify as worked specimens, because they have not been sufficiently altered. |
| --- | --- |

3.11.

Appendix I of this guidance provides illustrative examples of specimens which, although acquired in their finished state before 3 March 1947, would not qualify as worked specimens, because they have not been sufficiently altered.

| 3.12. | Appendix II of this guidance provides illustrative examples of specimens acquired in their finished state before 3 March 1947, often commercially traded, which would classify as worked specimens, because they have been sufficiently altered. |
| --- | --- |

3.12.

Appendix II of this guidance provides illustrative examples of specimens acquired in their finished state before 3 March 1947, often commercially traded, which would classify as worked specimens, because they have been sufficiently altered.

4.   Assessing whether the degree of ‘renovation’ and ‘reworking’ is acceptable for a specimen to still meet the criterion ‘require no further carving, crafting or manufacture to effect their purpose’

| 4.1. | In general, ‘worked specimens’ cannot be reworked and must remain in their original ‘worked’ state after 3 March 1947, regardless of the age of the material concerned (7). |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

In general, ‘worked specimens’ cannot be reworked and must remain in their original ‘worked’ state after 3 March 1947, regardless of the age of the material concerned (7).

| 4.2. | However, it is unrealistic to expect items to survive several centuries in the original condition and thus legitimate commercial activities involved in renovating antique items are allowed. Renovation cannot change the effect of the specimen as originally intended. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

However, it is unrealistic to expect items to survive several centuries in the original condition and thus legitimate commercial activities involved in renovating antique items are allowed. Renovation cannot change the effect of the specimen as originally intended.

| 4.3. | Reworking using CITES listed material acquired from after 3 March 1947 would mean the item would no longer qualify as a worked specimen. For example, specimens of Dalbergia nigra (Brazilian rosewood) such as floorboards or panelling reworked to form the bodywork for new guitars would not qualify as renovation. Also excluded from the scope of the definition would be the use of two damaged items to make one perfect one. For example, taking two damaged tea caddies, completely dismantling both of them and then making one new tea caddy from the undamaged elements of both would not meet the definition. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

Reworking using CITES listed material acquired from after 3 March 1947 would mean the item would no longer qualify as a worked specimen. For example, specimens of Dalbergia nigra (Brazilian rosewood) such as floorboards or panelling reworked to form the bodywork for new guitars would not qualify as renovation. Also excluded from the scope of the definition would be the use of two damaged items to make one perfect one. For example, taking two damaged tea caddies, completely dismantling both of them and then making one new tea caddy from the undamaged elements of both would not meet the definition.

| 4.4. | However, repair not involving CITES-listed materials would qualify for the definition of a worked specimen. For example, replacing the brass hinges on an antique tea caddy made from CITES-listed tortoiseshell would meet the conditions of the definition, if it meets also other requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

However, repair not involving CITES-listed materials would qualify for the definition of a worked specimen. For example, replacing the brass hinges on an antique tea caddy made from CITES-listed tortoiseshell would meet the conditions of the definition, if it meets also other requirements.

| 4.5. | Many items are renovated by taking material from other irretrievably damaged examples in order to renovate or repair the one good example. When CITES-listed material is used for renovation, this material must date from before the species was listed on the CITES Convention for the renovated item to still qualify as a worked specimen. For example, where ivory inlaid furniture needs additional ivory inserted to repair damage to the original inlay, provided that the ivory used for such a repair dates from before the species was listed on the CITES Convention (i.e. ‘pre-Convention’) it may be classified as renovation and the item may still qualify as a worked specimen, if it also meets other requirements. Equally, pre-Convention tortoiseshell taken from one tea caddy to renovate another may be classified as renovation and not reworking. |
| --- | --- |

4.5.

Many items are renovated by taking material from other irretrievably damaged examples in order to renovate or repair the one good example. When CITES-listed material is used for renovation, this material must date from before the species was listed on the CITES Convention for the renovated item to still qualify as a worked specimen. For example, where ivory inlaid furniture needs additional ivory inserted to repair damage to the original inlay, provided that the ivory used for such a repair dates from before the species was listed on the CITES Convention (i.e. ‘pre-Convention’) it may be classified as renovation and the item may still qualify as a worked specimen, if it also meets other requirements. Equally, pre-Convention tortoiseshell taken from one tea caddy to renovate another may be classified as renovation and not reworking.

5.   Assessing whether the Management Authority of the Member State concerned can be satisfied that the item has been acquired in such conditions that meet the definition of a ‘worked specimen’

| 5.1. | The responsibility for demonstrating that a particular specimen meets the definition of a worked specimen rests with the item's owner or vendor. |
| --- | --- |

5.1.

The responsibility for demonstrating that a particular specimen meets the definition of a worked specimen rests with the item's owner or vendor.

| 5.2. | On receipt of an application, Management Authorities will consider the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, this guidance, any other relevant species-specific guidance documents and past precedents to determine if the item satisfies the conditions to qualify as a worked specimen. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

On receipt of an application, Management Authorities will consider the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations, this guidance, any other relevant species-specific guidance documents and past precedents to determine if the item satisfies the conditions to qualify as a worked specimen.

| 5.3. | Except for cases referred to in paragraph 5.6, it would be acceptable to the Management Authority for a worked specimen's age and for the assessment whether the specimens qualifies as jewellery, adornment or art, to be verified by a person with expertise in the relevant field. This could be an antiques specialist, museum curator etc., who is recognised by a relevant trade association, representative body or similar organisation. This may be the person involved in the associated commercial use of the specimen concerned if the person has the relevant expertise. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

Except for cases referred to in paragraph 5.6, it would be acceptable to the Management Authority for a worked specimen's age and for the assessment whether the specimens qualifies as jewellery, adornment or art, to be verified by a person with expertise in the relevant field. This could be an antiques specialist, museum curator etc., who is recognised by a relevant trade association, representative body or similar organisation. This may be the person involved in the associated commercial use of the specimen concerned if the person has the relevant expertise.

| 5.4. | Some Member States may rely on specified individuals to make appraisals of a specimen's age and whether the specimen qualifies as jewellery, adornment or art, so applicants should check with their Management Authority. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

Some Member States may rely on specified individuals to make appraisals of a specimen's age and whether the specimen qualifies as jewellery, adornment or art, so applicants should check with their Management Authority.

| 5.5. | Evidence of provenance supplied by owners in the form of original dated receipts or bills of sale, or dated newspaper articles containing photographs or detailed descriptions of the specimen may also be acceptable as proof of age of the specimen to the CITES Management Authority. |
| --- | --- |

5.5.

Evidence of provenance supplied by owners in the form of original dated receipts or bills of sale, or dated newspaper articles containing photographs or detailed descriptions of the specimen may also be acceptable as proof of age of the specimen to the CITES Management Authority.

| 5.6. | However, if the Management Authority has doubts about the age of the specimen or about whether the specimen qualifies as jewellery, adornment or art, especially where high risk species such as elephants, rhinos and tigers are concerned, and/or where deliberate non-compliance is suspected, the Management Authority may decide that independent verification should be provided by an expert not involved in the commercial exploitation of the specimen in question. It should not, for example, be undertaken by the buyer or seller or another intermediary, such as an auction house, involved in the sale of the specimen. |
| --- | --- |

5.6.

However, if the Management Authority has doubts about the age of the specimen or about whether the specimen qualifies as jewellery, adornment or art, especially where high risk species such as elephants, rhinos and tigers are concerned, and/or where deliberate non-compliance is suspected, the Management Authority may decide that independent verification should be provided by an expert not involved in the commercial exploitation of the specimen in question. It should not, for example, be undertaken by the buyer or seller or another intermediary, such as an auction house, involved in the sale of the specimen.

| 5.7. | Such independent verification of the age of the specimen may also include verification by any available scientific means (such as radio-carbon dating for instance). However, when requesting such additional independent verification, it should be taken into account that even using methods such as these, accurate dating can sometimes be difficult to achieve and that large samples from the specimen may be required, causing possible damage to the specimen and potentially affecting its artistic and monetary value. |
| --- | --- |

5.7.

Such independent verification of the age of the specimen may also include verification by any available scientific means (such as radio-carbon dating for instance). However, when requesting such additional independent verification, it should be taken into account that even using methods such as these, accurate dating can sometimes be difficult to achieve and that large samples from the specimen may be required, causing possible damage to the specimen and potentially affecting its artistic and monetary value.

| 5.8. | Stuffed animals, especially birds of prey, are difficult to age and it can be difficult to prove that the specimen was in its finished state before 3 March 1947. Where renovation of stuffed animals has taken place, this can further compromise the verification process. To qualify for a worked specimen in case of a renovated stuffed animal, sufficient evidence of the specimen's original worked acquisition status needs to be provided to the Management Authority. |
| --- | --- |

5.8.

Stuffed animals, especially birds of prey, are difficult to age and it can be difficult to prove that the specimen was in its finished state before 3 March 1947. Where renovation of stuffed animals has taken place, this can further compromise the verification process. To qualify for a worked specimen in case of a renovated stuffed animal, sufficient evidence of the specimen's original worked acquisition status needs to be provided to the Management Authority.

| 5.9. | Management Authorities may require or introduce additional measures to be used in an assessment, so it is important for the applicant to check at the time of presenting application that all necessary information has been provided. |
| --- | --- |

5.9.

Management Authorities may require or introduce additional measures to be used in an assessment, so it is important for the applicant to check at the time of presenting application that all necessary information has been provided.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1) and its implementing regulations.

(2)  See Articles 4(5)(b) and 5(6)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

(3)  ‘50 years before the entry into force of this Regulation’ being before 3 March 1947.

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ L 166, 19.6.2006, p. 1).

(5)  CITES Res. Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP17): (a) the term ‘raw ivory’ shall include all whole elephant tusks, polished or unpolished and in any form whatsoever, and all elephant ivory in cut pieces, polished or unpolished and howsoever changed from its original form, except for ‘worked ivory’; and (b) the term ‘worked ivory’ shall be interpreted to mean ivory that has been carved, shaped or processed, either fully or partially, but shall not include whole tusks in any form, except where the whole surface has been carved.

(6)  Commission notice Guidance document: export, re-export, import and intra-Union trade of rhinoceros horns (2016/C 15/02).

(7)  See para. 2.2 and 3.1 of this Guidance.

---

Appendix I

EXAMPLES OF ITEMS WHICH WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS ‘WORKED SPECIMENS’

| | Uncarved tusks or parts of tusks, despite being part of an overall antique item, would not qualify as ‘worked’. Examples of such items also exist which have been manufactured from rhino horn, narwhal tusks and tiger claws. |
| --- | --- |
| | Carved elephant tusk does not have significant carving or engraving over at least 90 % of its surface and would not qualify as ‘worked’. |
| | Whole marine turtle shells frequently occur in trade but would not qualify as ‘worked’ unless the taxidermied animal is still attached to the shell. Lacquering and/or polishing of the shell would not qualify as ‘working’. Neither would the addition of fixings for wall mounting. |
| | Saw fish rostrums would not qualify as worked specimens. |
| | Narwhal tusks and whole teeth from Cetacea would not qualify as worked specimens. However, see scrimshaw under worked specimens ‘Art’. |
| | Rhino horn and other Annex A specimens where horns and/or skulls have been mounted on a wooden plaque would not qualify as ‘worked’. Particular care should be exercised with rhino horn specimens which are frequently bought and sold (often by weight) at greatly inflated prices in order to enter the illegal traditional medicine market. Other rhino horn specimens not significantly altered from their raw natural state, such as with other objects inserted into them (e.g. clocks, inkwells, barometers or other items) would not qualify as ‘worked’. |
| | Tiger claw bracelet mounted in silver. As the tiger claws themselves are ‘unworked’, i.e. unaltered from their natural state, they would not qualify as a worked specimen. |

Image

Uncarved tusks or parts of tusks, despite being part of an overall antique item, would not qualify as ‘worked’. Examples of such items also exist which have been manufactured from rhino horn, narwhal tusks and tiger claws.

Image

Carved elephant tusk does not have significant carving or engraving over at least 90 % of its surface and would not qualify as ‘worked’.

Image

Whole marine turtle shells frequently occur in trade but would not qualify as ‘worked’ unless the taxidermied animal is still attached to the shell. Lacquering and/or polishing of the shell would not qualify as ‘working’. Neither would the addition of fixings for wall mounting.

Image

Saw fish rostrums would not qualify as worked specimens.

Image

Narwhal tusks and whole teeth from Cetacea would not qualify as worked specimens. However, see scrimshaw under worked specimens ‘Art’.

Image

Rhino horn and other Annex A specimens where horns and/or skulls have been mounted on a wooden plaque would not qualify as ‘worked’. Particular care should be exercised with rhino horn specimens which are frequently bought and sold (often by weight) at greatly inflated prices in order to enter the illegal traditional medicine market. Other rhino horn specimens not significantly altered from their raw natural state, such as with other objects inserted into them (e.g. clocks, inkwells, barometers or other items) would not qualify as ‘worked’.

Image

Tiger claw bracelet mounted in silver. As the tiger claws themselves are ‘unworked’, i.e. unaltered from their natural state, they would not qualify as a worked specimen.

---

Appendix II

EXAMPLES OF ITEMS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO QUALIFY AS ‘WORKED SPECIMENS’

| Section 1 | Jewellery & adornment |
| --- | --- |
| Section 2 | Art |
| Section 3 | Utility |
| Section 4 | Musical instruments |

Section 1

Jewellery & adornment

Section 2

Art

Section 3

Utility

Section 4

Musical instruments

Section 1 — Jewellery and adornment

| | Carved ivory wrist bracelets providing that they pre-date March 1947. However, there are many examples of modern bracelets being passed off as ‘antique’ and care should be taken before agreeing sales of such items. Working itself cannot be dated, which means that documentary evidence would be required to date such a specimen. |
| --- | --- |
| | Carved ivory beads, for the same reasons as above. |

Image

Carved ivory wrist bracelets providing that they pre-date March 1947. However, there are many examples of modern bracelets being passed off as ‘antique’ and care should be taken before agreeing sales of such items. Working itself cannot be dated, which means that documentary evidence would be required to date such a specimen.

Image

Carved ivory beads, for the same reasons as above.

Section 2 — Art

| | Carved rhino horn libation cup. Age usually determined by experts from the antique industry. Most examples seen in reputable trade will probably date from the 18th century and earlier. |
| --- | --- |
| | Elephant tusk carved over at least 90 % of its surface is likely to qualify as a ‘worked specimen’. |
| | Carved ivory figurine. |
| | Rhino horn ceremonial spoon. |
| | Taxidermy specimens (but note advice on ‘renovation’ at paragraph 5.8) |
| | Scrimshaw whale’s tooth (the surface of the specimen engraved with pictures and/or lettering, with the engraving highlighted using a pigment) |

Image

Carved rhino horn libation cup. Age usually determined by experts from the antique industry. Most examples seen in reputable trade will probably date from the 18th century and earlier.

Image

Elephant tusk carved over at least 90 % of its surface is likely to qualify as a ‘worked specimen’.

Image

Carved ivory figurine.

Image

Rhino horn ceremonial spoon.

Image

Taxidermy specimens (but note advice on ‘renovation’ at paragraph 5.8)

Image

Scrimshaw whale’s tooth (the surface of the specimen engraved with pictures and/or lettering, with the engraving highlighted using a pigment)

Section 3 — Utility

| | Handbags, shoes, wallets watchstraps, etc. Typically manufactured from crocodile or snake skin. |
| --- | --- |
| | Alligator skin lady’s shoe — very popular and many examples still exist from around the 1930s. Usually sold through specialist shops but now increasingly through internet trade. |
| | Clothing — note, it is extremely difficult to determine the age of items of clothing and often, unless the label gives a date, or the age of the item can be determined from company records, it may be useful to consult fashion experts. |
| | Tea caddy, the case often fashioned from tortoiseshell (marine turtle) or may include Brazilian rosewood or ivory inlay. |
| | Furniture, which may be made of rosewood or include ivory inlay. |
| | Ivory billiard balls. Note — these frequently occur in trade having been reworked into umbrella or walking stick handles/heads. Where such items have been ‘reworked’ after 3 March 1947, they will no longer meet the definition of a worked specimen. |
| | Ivory handled gentlemen’s walking sticks which were often manufactured during both the 18th and 19th Century. However, care must be taken on taking such items on trust as many have been reworked from other ivory specimens and are in many cases modern in manufacture. |
| | Elephant’s foot umbrella stand which has been taxidermied and lined with another substance to constitute the ‘worked specimen’ |
| | Tiger skin rug — providing the specimen is tanned. If the taxidermied head of the original animal remains naturally attached to the skin even if the skin is not tanned the rug is likely to be considered ‘worked’. Claws and teeth would not exclude rugs or taxidermied heads or whole specimens from the definition. |
| | Tortoise shell tea caddy with modelled wooden head and legs and internally altered is likely to qualify as a ‘worked’ specimen. |

Image

Handbags, shoes, wallets watchstraps, etc. Typically manufactured from crocodile or snake skin.

Image

Alligator skin lady’s shoe — very popular and many examples still exist from around the 1930s. Usually sold through specialist shops but now increasingly through internet trade.

Image

Clothing — note, it is extremely difficult to determine the age of items of clothing and often, unless the label gives a date, or the age of the item can be determined from company records, it may be useful to consult fashion experts.

Image

Tea caddy, the case often fashioned from tortoiseshell (marine turtle) or may include Brazilian rosewood or ivory inlay.

Image

Furniture, which may be made of rosewood or include ivory inlay.

Image

Ivory billiard balls. Note — these frequently occur in trade having been reworked into umbrella or walking stick handles/heads. Where such items have been ‘reworked’ after 3 March 1947, they will no longer meet the definition of a worked specimen.

Image

Ivory handled gentlemen’s walking sticks which were often manufactured during both the 18th and 19th Century. However, care must be taken on taking such items on trust as many have been reworked from other ivory specimens and are in many cases modern in manufacture.

Image

Elephant’s foot umbrella stand which has been taxidermied and lined with another substance to constitute the ‘worked specimen’

Image

Tiger skin rug — providing the specimen is tanned. If the taxidermied head of the original animal remains naturally attached to the skin even if the skin is not tanned the rug is likely to be considered ‘worked’. Claws and teeth would not exclude rugs or taxidermied heads or whole specimens from the definition.

Image

Tortoise shell tea caddy with modelled wooden head and legs and internally altered is likely to qualify as a ‘worked’ specimen.

Section 4 — Musical instruments

| | Bagpipes, which are often adorned with ivory ferrules. Other woodwind instruments such as clarinets etc. may also have ivory banding. |
| --- | --- |
| | Antique pianos, which almost always include ivory keys but may also include ivory inlay or rosewood marquetry. Note — replacement ivory keys are frequently used from pianos not considered saleable in the antique renovation business. |
| | Stringed instruments such as guitars etc. often include ivory inlaid on the bridge, fret board and tuning keys (keys to which the strings are attached and tightened). They may also include bodywork (fronts or backs) made from Brazilian rosewood. |

Image

Bagpipes, which are often adorned with ivory ferrules. Other woodwind instruments such as clarinets etc. may also have ivory banding.

Image

Antique pianos, which almost always include ivory keys but may also include ivory inlay or rosewood marquetry. Note — replacement ivory keys are frequently used from pianos not considered saleable in the antique renovation business.

Image

Stringed instruments such as guitars etc. often include ivory inlaid on the bridge, fret board and tuning keys (keys to which the strings are attached and tightened). They may also include bodywork (fronts or backs) made from Brazilian rosewood.

---

| 17.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/27

---

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 28 Member States applicable as from 1 June 2017

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))

(2017/C 154/08)

Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.

Modified rates are indicated in bold.

Previous table published in OJ C 133, 27.4.2017, p. 2.

| From | To | AT | BE | BG | CY | CZ | DE | DK | EE | EL | ES | FI | FR | HR | HU | IE | IT | LT | LU | LV | MT | NL | PL | PT | RO | SE | SI | SK | UK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.6.2017 | ... | -0,10 | -0,10 | 0,76 | -0,10 | 0,45 | -0,10 | 0,12 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 0,70 | 0,37 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 1,83 | -0,10 | 1,10 | -0,36 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 0,78 |
| 1.5.2017 | 31.5.2017 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 0,76 | -0,10 | 0,45 | -0,10 | 0,12 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 0,70 | 0,44 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 1,83 | -0,10 | 1,10 | -0,36 | -0,10 | -0,10 | 0,78 |
| 1.4.2017 | 30.4.2017 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 0,76 | -0,08 | 0,45 | -0,08 | 0,16 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 0,83 | 0,44 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 1,83 | -0,08 | 1,10 | -0,36 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 0,78 |
| 1.3.2017 | 31.3.2017 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 0,76 | -0,08 | 0,45 | -0,08 | 0,16 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 1,05 | 0,53 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 1,83 | -0,08 | 1,10 | -0,36 | -0,08 | -0,08 | 0,78 |
| 1.1.2017 | 28.2.2017 | -0,07 | -0,07 | 0,76 | -0,07 | 0,45 | -0,07 | 0,16 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | 1,05 | 0,75 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | -0,07 | 1,83 | -0,07 | 1,10 | -0,36 | -0,07 | -0,07 | 0,78 |

From

To

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

1.6.2017

...

-0,10

-0,10

0,76

-0,10

0,45

-0,10

0,12

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

0,70

0,37

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

1,83

-0,10

1,10

-0,36

-0,10

-0,10

0,78

1.5.2017

31.5.2017

-0,10

-0,10

0,76

-0,10

0,45

-0,10

0,12

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

0,70

0,44

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

-0,10

1,83

-0,10

1,10

-0,36

-0,10

-0,10

0,78

1.4.2017

30.4.2017

-0,08

-0,08

0,76

-0,08

0,45

-0,08

0,16

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

0,83

0,44

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

1,83

-0,08

1,10

-0,36

-0,08

-0,08

0,78

1.3.2017

31.3.2017

-0,08

-0,08

0,76

-0,08

0,45

-0,08

0,16

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

1,05

0,53

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

-0,08

1,83

-0,08

1,10

-0,36

-0,08

-0,08

0,78

1.1.2017

28.2.2017

-0,07

-0,07

0,76

-0,07

0,45

-0,07

0,16

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

1,05

0,75

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

-0,07

1,83

-0,07

1,10

-0,36

-0,07

-0,07

0,78

---