# Official Journal L 32/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 32 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 663 February 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 32

English edition

Legislation

Volume 663 February 2023

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/222 of 1 December 2022 on the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for all nationals of Vanuatu | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/223 of 27 January 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/224 of 2 February 2023 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (Euratom) 2023/225 of 30 January 2023 on the extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH | 51 |
| | * | Council Decision (Euratom) 2023/226 of 30 January 2023 on the extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH | 53 |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2023/227 of 30 January 2023 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions | 56 |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2023/228 of 30 January 2023 appointing three members and two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of Sweden, of the Committee of the Regions | 58 |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/229 of 2 February 2023 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces | 60 |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/230 of 2 February 2023 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force | 62 |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/231 of 2 February 2023 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces trained by the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine | 64 |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2023/232 of 25 July 2022 on the State aid SA.55208 (2020/C) (ex 2022/NN) implemented by Czechia for Czech Post
  (notified under document C(2022) 5136)

   (
  1
  ) | 68 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/233 of 19 January 2023 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2023) 626)

   (
  1
  ) | 123 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/234 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the Presentation Notification related to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union
  (notified under document C(2023) 662) | 217 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/235 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the notification of arrival of a sea-going vessel or of an aircraft
  (notified under document C(2023) 663) | 220 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/236 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the Temporary Storage declaration related to non-Union goods presented to customs
  (notified under document C(2023) 664) | 223 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/237 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information related to the customs declaration for goods brought into the customs territory of the Union laid down in Articles 158, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170 to 174, 201, 240, 250, 254 and 256 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code
  (notified under document C(2023) 667) | 226 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/222 of 1 December 2022 on the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for all nationals of Vanuatu

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/223 of 27 January 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (
  1
  )

Pseudomonas chlororaphis

1

5

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/224 of 2 February 2023 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (
  1
  )

1

11

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (Euratom) 2023/225 of 30 January 2023 on the extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH

51

*

Council Decision (Euratom) 2023/226 of 30 January 2023 on the extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH

53

*

Council Decision (EU) 2023/227 of 30 January 2023 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions

56

*

Council Decision (EU) 2023/228 of 30 January 2023 appointing three members and two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of Sweden, of the Committee of the Regions

,

58

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/229 of 2 February 2023 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces

60

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/230 of 2 February 2023 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force

62

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/231 of 2 February 2023 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces trained by the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine

64

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2023/232 of 25 July 2022 on the State aid SA.55208 (2020/C) (ex 2022/NN) implemented by Czechia for Czech Post
  (notified under document C(2022) 5136)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2022) 5136)

1

68

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/233 of 19 January 2023 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2023) 626)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2023) 626)

1

123

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/234 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the Presentation Notification related to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union
  (notified under document C(2023) 662)

(notified under document C(2023) 662)

217

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/235 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the notification of arrival of a sea-going vessel or of an aircraft
  (notified under document C(2023) 663)

(notified under document C(2023) 663)

220

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/236 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the Temporary Storage declaration related to non-Union goods presented to customs
  (notified under document C(2023) 664)

(notified under document C(2023) 664)

223

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/237 of 1 February 2023 granting a derogation requested by certain Member States to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information related to the customs declaration for goods brought into the customs territory of the Union laid down in Articles 158, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170 to 174, 201, 240, 250, 254 and 256 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code
  (notified under document C(2023) 667)

(notified under document C(2023) 667)

226

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

II Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/1

---

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2023/222

of 1 December 2022

on the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for all nationals of Vanuatu

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (1), and in particular Article 8(6), point (b) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Republic of Vanuatu is listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 among the third countries whose nationals are exempt from the requirement to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period. The exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of Vanuatu is applicable since 28 May 2015, when the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver (2) (‘the Agreement’) was signed and started to apply on a provisional basis in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement. The agreement entered into force on 1 April 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Republic of Vanuatu is listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 among the third countries whose nationals are exempt from the requirement to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period. The exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of Vanuatu is applicable since 28 May 2015, when the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver (2) (‘the Agreement’) was signed and started to apply on a provisional basis in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement. The agreement entered into force on 1 April 2017.

| (2) | Since 25 May 2015, Vanuatu has been operating investor citizenship schemes by means of which third-country nationals who are otherwise visa-required have the possibility to obtain the citizenship of Vanuatu in exchange for investment, therefore obtaining visa-free access to the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Since 25 May 2015, Vanuatu has been operating investor citizenship schemes by means of which third-country nationals who are otherwise visa-required have the possibility to obtain the citizenship of Vanuatu in exchange for investment, therefore obtaining visa-free access to the Union.

| (3) | It has derived from relevant data, reports and statistics, and on the basis of concrete and reliable information (3) that the citizenship-by-investment schemes of Vanuatu, in their current form and operation, go against the objectives of the Union’s visa policy, which provides for a screening of nationals from visa-required third countries against the criteria set out in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and in equivalent national legislation of those Member States where Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 does not yet apply in full. The manner in which the said schemes are being implemented constitutes a circumvention of the Union short-stay visa procedure and the assessment of security and migratory risks it entails. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It has derived from relevant data, reports and statistics, and on the basis of concrete and reliable information (3) that the citizenship-by-investment schemes of Vanuatu, in their current form and operation, go against the objectives of the Union’s visa policy, which provides for a screening of nationals from visa-required third countries against the criteria set out in Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and in equivalent national legislation of those Member States where Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 does not yet apply in full. The manner in which the said schemes are being implemented constitutes a circumvention of the Union short-stay visa procedure and the assessment of security and migratory risks it entails.

| (4) | In accordance with Article 8(2)(d), 8(3) and 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, the Commission has concluded that the granting of citizenship by Vanuatu under its investor citizenship schemes constitutes an increased risk to the internal security and public policy of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In accordance with Article 8(2)(d), 8(3) and 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, the Commission has concluded that the granting of citizenship by Vanuatu under its investor citizenship schemes constitutes an increased risk to the internal security and public policy of the Member States.

| (5) | On 3 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2022/366 (5), on the partial suspension of the application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver, in accordance with Article 8(4) of the Agreement. The suspension of the application of the Agreement is limited to ordinary passports issued as of 25 May 2015, when the number of successful applicants under Vanuatu’s investor citizenship schemes started to increase significantly. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 3 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2022/366 (5), on the partial suspension of the application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver, in accordance with Article 8(4) of the Agreement. The suspension of the application of the Agreement is limited to ordinary passports issued as of 25 May 2015, when the number of successful applicants under Vanuatu’s investor citizenship schemes started to increase significantly.

| (6) | On 27 April 2022, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/693 (6) on the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for nationals of Vanuatu, in accordance with Article 8(6), point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. The suspension applies from 4 May 2022 to 3 February 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 27 April 2022, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/693 (6) on the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for nationals of Vanuatu, in accordance with Article 8(6), point (a) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806. The suspension applies from 4 May 2022 to 3 February 2023.

| (7) | Following the entry into force of the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for the aforementioned category of nationals of Vanuatu on 4 May 2022, and in accordance with Article 8(6), point (a), third subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, on 12 May 2022 the Commission established an enhanced dialogue with Vanuatu, with a view to remedying the circumstances having led to the temporary suspension of the visa exemption. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Following the entry into force of the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for the aforementioned category of nationals of Vanuatu on 4 May 2022, and in accordance with Article 8(6), point (a), third subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, on 12 May 2022 the Commission established an enhanced dialogue with Vanuatu, with a view to remedying the circumstances having led to the temporary suspension of the visa exemption.

| (8) | In the first meeting organised in the context of the enhanced dialogue, on 12 May 2022, the Commission expressed its willingness to find a solution and, to this end, proposed to hold monthly technical meetings. The parties agreed that the authorities of Vanuatu would appoint an interlocutor and communicate it to the Commission, in order to proceed with the subsequent technical meetings. Vanuatu informed the Commission of the decision of the Government of Vanuatu to set up a Task Force to review the investor citizenship schemes. It was agreed that the authorities of Vanuatu would transmit to the Commission a progress report prepared by the Task Force. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In the first meeting organised in the context of the enhanced dialogue, on 12 May 2022, the Commission expressed its willingness to find a solution and, to this end, proposed to hold monthly technical meetings. The parties agreed that the authorities of Vanuatu would appoint an interlocutor and communicate it to the Commission, in order to proceed with the subsequent technical meetings. Vanuatu informed the Commission of the decision of the Government of Vanuatu to set up a Task Force to review the investor citizenship schemes. It was agreed that the authorities of Vanuatu would transmit to the Commission a progress report prepared by the Task Force.

| (9) | However, Vanuatu has not subsequently engaged in a meaningful way. To date, Vanuatu’s investor citizenship schemes remain in operation. The Commission has not received any information from the authorities of Vanuatu with regard to possible legislative and non-legislative actions aiming at remedying the circumstances having led to the temporary suspension. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

However, Vanuatu has not subsequently engaged in a meaningful way. To date, Vanuatu’s investor citizenship schemes remain in operation. The Commission has not received any information from the authorities of Vanuatu with regard to possible legislative and non-legislative actions aiming at remedying the circumstances having led to the temporary suspension.

| (10) | Thus, the circumstances referred to in Article 8(2), point (d) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, namely the increased risk to the public policy or internal security of Member States, persist. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Thus, the circumstances referred to in Article 8(2), point (d) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, namely the increased risk to the public policy or internal security of Member States, persist.

| (11) | Due to the persistence of the aforementioned circumstances and the absence of engagement of Vanuatu to remedy them, the application of the Agreement was suspended in whole by Council Decision (EU) 2022/2198 (7), repealing Decision (EU) 2022/366 and suspending the application of the Agreement for all nationals of Vanuatu. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Due to the persistence of the aforementioned circumstances and the absence of engagement of Vanuatu to remedy them, the application of the Agreement was suspended in whole by Council Decision (EU) 2022/2198 (7), repealing Decision (EU) 2022/366 and suspending the application of the Agreement for all nationals of Vanuatu.

| (12) | In accordance with Article 8(6), point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, given the persistence of the situation, it is necessary to adopt a delegated act temporarily suspending the visa exemption for a period of 18 months for all nationals of Vanuatu. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In accordance with Article 8(6), point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, given the persistence of the situation, it is necessary to adopt a delegated act temporarily suspending the visa exemption for a period of 18 months for all nationals of Vanuatu.

| (13) | As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in point B of Article 1 of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (8). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in point B of Article 1 of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (8).

| (14) | As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement signed between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in points B and C of Article 1 of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (9). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement signed between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in points B and C of Article 1 of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (9).

| (15) | As regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in points B and C of Article 1 of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (10). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

As regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, which fall within the area referred to in points B and C of Article 1 of Decision 1999/437/EC, read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU (10).

| (16) | This Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (11); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

This Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (11); Ireland is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

| (17) | This Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise relating to, the Schengen acquis within, respectively, the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession, Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession and Article 4(1) of the 2011 Act of Accession, |
| --- | --- |

(17)

This Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise relating to, the Schengen acquis within, respectively, the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession, Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession and Article 4(1) of the 2011 Act of Accession,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Temporary suspension of the exemption from the visa requirement

In Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/1806, in point 1 (‘States’), the reference to ‘Vanuatu’ is replaced by the following:

‘Vanuatu (*1)

Article 2

Entry into force and period of application

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

It shall apply from 4 February 2023 to 3 August 2024.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2022.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 39.

1

(2)  OJ L 173, 3.7.2015, p. 48.

2

(3)  Proposal for a Council Decision on the partial suspension of the application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver (COM/2022/6 final), recitals 5–12.

3

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1).

4

(5)  Council Decision (EU) 2022/366 of 3 March 2022 on the partial suspension of the application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver (OJ L 69, 4.3.2022, p. 105).

5

(6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/693 of 27 April 2022 on the temporary suspension of the visa exemption for nationals of Vanuatu (OJ L 129, 3.5.2022, p. 18).

6

(7)  Council Decision (EU) 2022/2198 of 8 November 2022 on the suspension in whole of the application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Vanuatu on the short-stay visa waiver (OJ L 292, 11.11.2022, p. 47).

7

(8)  Council Decision 1999/437/EC of 17 May 1999 on certain arrangements for the application of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the association of those two States with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31).

8

acquis

(9)  Council Decision 2008/146/EC of 28 January 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 1).

9

acquis

(10)  Council Decision 2011/350/EU of 7 March 2011 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, relating to the abolition of checks at internal borders and movement of persons (OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 19).

10

acquis

(11)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

11

acquis

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/223

of 27 January 2023

renewing the approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 20(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Directive 2004/71/EC (2) included Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 as an active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Directive 2004/71/EC (2) included Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 as an active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (3).

| (2) | Active substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC are deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (4). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Active substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC are deemed to have been approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and are listed in Part A of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (4).

| (3) | The approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, expires on 30 April 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, as set out in Part A of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, expires on 30 April 2023.

| (4) | An application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 was submitted to the Netherlands, the rapporteur Member State, in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (5) and within the time period provided for in that Article. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

An application for the renewal of the approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 was submitted to the Netherlands, the rapporteur Member State, in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (5) and within the time period provided for in that Article.

| (5) | The applicant submitted the supplementary dossiers required in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The application was found to be admissible by the rapporteur Member State. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The applicant submitted the supplementary dossiers required in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The application was found to be admissible by the rapporteur Member State.

| (6) | The Netherlands prepared a draft renewal assessment report in consultation with Denmark, the co-rapporteur Member State, and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) and the Commission on 11 January 2016. In its draft renewal assessment report the Netherlands proposed to renew the approval of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Netherlands prepared a draft renewal assessment report in consultation with Denmark, the co-rapporteur Member State, and submitted it to the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) and the Commission on 11 January 2016. In its draft renewal assessment report the Netherlands proposed to renew the approval of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342.

| (7) | The Authority made the supplementary summary dossier available to the public. The Authority also circulated the draft renewal assessment report to the applicant and to the Member States for comments and launched a public consultation on it. The Authority forwarded the comments received to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Authority made the supplementary summary dossier available to the public. The Authority also circulated the draft renewal assessment report to the applicant and to the Member States for comments and launched a public consultation on it. The Authority forwarded the comments received to the Commission.

| (8) | On 9 December 2016, the Authority communicated to the Commission its conclusion (6) which indicated that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 9 December 2016, the Authority communicated to the Commission its conclusion (6) which indicated that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 can be expected to meet the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

| (9) | Based on discussions at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, the Commission requested the Authority on 3 February 2020 to provide scientific advice on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and, if applicable, for a revision of the assessment of the risk to humans by the metabolite 2, 3-deepoxy-2, 3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR). In response, on 23 September 2020, the Authority issued a statement on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and an assessment of the risk to humans (7). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Based on discussions at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, the Commission requested the Authority on 3 February 2020 to provide scientific advice on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and, if applicable, for a revision of the assessment of the risk to humans by the metabolite 2, 3-deepoxy-2, 3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR). In response, on 23 September 2020, the Authority issued a statement on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and an assessment of the risk to humans (7).

| (10) | The Commission presented the renewal report and a draft of this Regulation regarding Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on 15 October 2022 and 8 December 2022, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission presented the renewal report and a draft of this Regulation regarding Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on 15 October 2022 and 8 December 2022, respectively.

| (11) | The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion and the statement of the Authority and, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 14(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, on the renewal report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined and taken into consideration where appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Commission invited the applicant to submit its comments on the conclusion and the statement of the Authority and, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 14(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, on the renewal report. The applicant submitted its comments, which have been carefully examined and taken into consideration where appropriate.

| (12) | It has been established, with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

It has been established, with respect to one or more representative uses of at least one plant protection product containing the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, that the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are satisfied.

| (13) | It is therefore appropriate to renew the approval of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342. In accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge (8) and the outcome of the risk assessment, it is, however, necessary to set certain conditions. In particular, it is necessary to maintain the existing restriction to use Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 only as fungicide for seed dressing in closed seed dressing machinery and to set the maximum content of the metabolite DDR in plant protection products containing Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

It is therefore appropriate to renew the approval of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342. In accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, and in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge (8) and the outcome of the risk assessment, it is, however, necessary to set certain conditions. In particular, it is necessary to maintain the existing restriction to use Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 only as fungicide for seed dressing in closed seed dressing machinery and to set the maximum content of the metabolite DDR in plant protection products containing Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342.

| (14) | In addition, in order to increase the confidence in the conclusion that the risk for human beings and the environment following the exposure to Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is negligible or very low, the applicant should provide confirmatory information as regards the identification and characterisation of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, the metabolite DDR and the potential for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to other micro-organisms. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In addition, in order to increase the confidence in the conclusion that the risk for human beings and the environment following the exposure to Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is negligible or very low, the applicant should provide confirmatory information as regards the identification and characterisation of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, the metabolite DDR and the potential for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to other micro-organisms.

| (15) | Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (16) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/378 (9) extended the approval period of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to 30 April 2023 in order to allow the renewal process to be completed before the expiry of the approval period of that active substance. However, given that a decision on renewal has been taken ahead of that extended expiry date, this Regulation should apply earlier than that date. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/378 (9) extended the approval period of Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to 30 April 2023 in order to allow the renewal process to be completed before the expiry of the approval period of that active substance. However, given that a decision on renewal has been taken ahead of that extended expiry date, this Regulation should apply earlier than that date.

| (17) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Renewal of the approval of the active substance

The approval of the active substance Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, as specified in Annex I to this Regulation, is renewed, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.

Article 2

Amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011

The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended in accordance with Annex II to this Regulation.

Article 3

Entry into force and date of application

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

It shall apply from 1 March 2023.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 2023.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Directive 2004/71/EC of 28 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include Pseudomonas chlororaphis as active substance (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 104).

2

Pseudomonas chlororaphis

(3)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1).

3

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances (OJ L 153, 11.6.2011, p. 1).

4

(5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 of 18 September 2012 setting out the provisions necessary for the implementation of the renewal procedure for active substances, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 252, 19.9.2012, p. 26). This Regulation was replaced by Regulation (EU) 2020/1740, however, it continues to apply to the procedure for the renewal of the approval of active substances: (1) whose approval period ends before 27 March 2024; (2) for which a Regulation, adopted in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on or after 27 March 2021, extends the approval period to 27 March 2024 or a later date.

5

(6)  EFSA Journal 2017;15(1):4668. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu.

6

(7)  EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2020. Statement on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and assessment of the risk to humans. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6276.

7

Pseudomonas chlororaphis

(8)  Guidance on the risk assessment of metabolites produced by microorganisms used as plant protection active substances (SANCO/2020/12258): https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_180653_microorganism-metabolites-concern_202011.pdf.

8

Guidance on the approval and low-risk criteria linked to ‘antimicrobial resistance’ applicable to microorganisms used for plant protection (SANTE/2020/12260): https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_180652_microorganism-amr_202011.pdf.

(9)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/378 of 4 March 2022 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances abamectin, Bacillus subtilis (Cohn 1872) strain QST 713, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Aizawai strains ABTS-1857 and GC-91, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Israeliensis (serotype H-14) strain AM65-52, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki strains ABTS 351, PB 54, SA 11, SA12 and EG 2348, Beauveria bassiana strains ATCC 74040 and GHA, clodinafop, Cydia pomonella Granulovirus (CpGV), cyprodinil, dichlorprop-P, fenpyroximate, fosetyl, malathion, mepanipyrim, metconazole, metrafenone, pirimicarb, Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA342, pyrimethanil, Pythium oligandrum M1, rimsulfuron, spinosad, Trichoderma asperellum (formerly T. harzianum) strains ICC012, T25 and TV1, Trichoderma atroviride (formerly T. harzianum) strain T11, Trichoderma gamsii (formerly T. viride) strain ICC080, Trichoderma harzianum strains T-22 and ITEM 908, triclopyr, trinexapac, triticonazole and ziram (OJ L 72, 7.3.2022, p. 2).

9

---

ANNEX I

| Common Name, Identification Numbers | IUPAC Name | Purity (1) | Date of approval | Expiration of approval | Specific provisions |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pseudomonas chlororaphis

  strain MA 342
  Culture collection: NCIMB, UK: NCIMB 40616 | Not applicable | The amount of the secondary metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA) must not exceed the LOQ (2.0 μg/ml). | 1 March 2023 | 28 February 2038 | Only uses as fungicide for seed dressing in closed seed dressing machinery may be authorised.
  For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the renewal report on Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, and in particular Appendices I and II thereof, shall be taken into account.
  In this overall assessment Member States shall pay particular attention to:






  — | the level of the metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA), which must not exceed 2 μg/ml; |

Common Name, Identification Numbers

IUPAC Name

Purity (1)

Date of approval

Expiration of approval

Specific provisions

Pseudomonas chlororaphis

strain MA 342

Culture collection: NCIMB, UK: NCIMB 40616

Not applicable

The amount of the secondary metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA) must not exceed the LOQ (2.0 μg/ml).

1 March 2023

28 February 2038

Only uses as fungicide for seed dressing in closed seed dressing machinery may be authorised.

For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the renewal report on Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, and in particular Appendices I and II thereof, shall be taken into account.

In this overall assessment Member States shall pay particular attention to:

—

the level of the metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA), which must not exceed 2 μg/ml;

| — | the protection of operators and workers, taking into account that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is to be considered, as any micro-organism, as a potential sensitiser, and paying special attention to exposure through inhalation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the protection of operators and workers, taking into account that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is to be considered, as any micro-organism, as a potential sensitiser, and paying special attention to exposure through inhalation.

Strict maintenance of environmental conditions and quality control analysis during the manufacturing process, shall be assured by the producer, in order to ensure the fulfilment of the limits on microbiological contamination as referred to in the Working Document SANCO/12116/2012.

Conditions of use shall include risk mitigation measures, where appropriate.

The applicant shall submit to the Commission, the Member States and the Authority confirmatory information as regards:

| 1. | the phylogenetic taxonomic identification of the micro-organism in accordance with point 1.3 (identity, taxonomy and phylogeny) of Annex II, Part B of Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1439 (2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

the phylogenetic taxonomic identification of the micro-organism in accordance with point 1.3 (identity, taxonomy and phylogeny) of Annex II, Part B of Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1439 (2);

| 2. | the secondary metabolite DDR in accordance with SANCO/2020/12258 (3), in particular on its degradation rate; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the secondary metabolite DDR in accordance with SANCO/2020/12258 (3), in particular on its degradation rate;

| 3. | the potential for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to other micro-organisms in accordance with SANTE/2020/12260 (4). |
| --- | --- |

3.

the potential for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to other micro-organisms in accordance with SANTE/2020/12260 (4).

The applicant shall submit the requested information referred to in point 1, 2 and 3 by 23 February 2025.

---

(1)  Further details on the identity and the specification of the active substance are provided in the renewal report.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1439 of 31 August 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 as regards the information to be submitted for active substances and the specific data requirements for micro-organisms (OJ L 227, 1.9.2022, p. 8).

(3)  Guidance on the risk assessment of metabolites produced by microorganisms used as plant protection active substances (SANCO/2020/12258): https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_180653_microorganism-metabolites-concern_202011.pdf.

(4)  Guidance on the approval and low-risk criteria linked to ‘antimicrobial resistance’ applicable to microorganisms used for plant protection (SANTE/2020/12260): https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_180652_microorganism-amr_202011.pdf.

---

ANNEX II

The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Part A, entry 89 on Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is deleted; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in Part A, entry 89 on Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is deleted;

| (2) | in Part B, the following entry is added:











  ‘156 | Pseudomonas chlororaphis

  strain MA 342
  Culture collection: NCIMB, UK: NCIMB 40616 | Not applicable | The amount of the secondary metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA) must not exceed the LOQ (2.0 μg/ml). | 1 March 2023 | 28 February 2038 | Only uses as fungicide for seed dressing in closed seed dressing machinery may be authorised.
  For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the renewal report on Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, and in particular Appendices I and II thereof, shall be taken into account.
  In this overall assessment Member States shall pay particular attention to:






  — | the level of the metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA), which must not exceed 2 μg/ml; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

(2)

in Part B, the following entry is added:

‘156

Pseudomonas chlororaphis

strain MA 342

Culture collection: NCIMB, UK: NCIMB 40616

Not applicable

The amount of the secondary metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA) must not exceed the LOQ (2.0 μg/ml).

1 March 2023

28 February 2038

Only uses as fungicide for seed dressing in closed seed dressing machinery may be authorised.

For the implementation of the uniform principles, as referred to in Article 29(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the conclusions of the renewal report on Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342, and in particular Appendices I and II thereof, shall be taken into account.

In this overall assessment Member States shall pay particular attention to:

—

the level of the metabolite 2,3-deepoxy-2,3-didehydro-rhizoxin (DDR) in the Microbial Pest Control Agent (MPCA), which must not exceed 2 μg/ml;

| — | the protection of operators and workers, taking into account that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is to be considered, as any micro-organism, as a potential sensitiser, and paying special attention to exposure through inhalation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the protection of operators and workers, taking into account that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 is to be considered, as any micro-organism, as a potential sensitiser, and paying special attention to exposure through inhalation.

Strict maintenance of environmental conditions and quality control analysis during the manufacturing process, shall be assured by the producer, in order to ensure the fulfilment of the limits on microbiological contamination as referred to in the Working Document SANCO/12116/2012.

Conditions of use shall include risk mitigation measures, where appropriate.

The applicant shall submit to the Commission, the Member States and the Authority confirmatory information as regards:

| 1. | the phylogenetic taxonomic identification of the micro-organism in accordance with point 1.3 (identity, taxonomy and phylogeny) of Annex II, Part B of Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1439 ((*)); |
| --- | --- |

1.

the phylogenetic taxonomic identification of the micro-organism in accordance with point 1.3 (identity, taxonomy and phylogeny) of Annex II, Part B of Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1439 ((*));

| 2. | the secondary metabolite DDR in accordance with SANCO/2020/12258 ((**)), in particular on its degradation rate; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the secondary metabolite DDR in accordance with SANCO/2020/12258 ((**)), in particular on its degradation rate;

| 3. | the potential for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to other micro-organisms in accordance with SANTE/2020/12260 ((***)). |
| --- | --- |

3.

the potential for gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342 to other micro-organisms in accordance with SANTE/2020/12260 ((***)).

The applicant shall submit the requested information referred to in points 1, 2 and 3 by 23 February 2025.

---

((*))  Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1439 of 31 August 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 as regards the information to be submitted for active substances and the specific data requirements for micro-organisms (OJ L 227, 1.9.2022, p. 8).

((**))  Guidance on the risk assessment of metabolites produced by microorganisms used as plant protection active substances (SANCO/2020/12258): https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_180653_microorganism-metabolites-concern_202011.pdf.

((***))  Guidance on the approval and low-risk criteria linked to ‘antimicrobial resistance’ applicable to microorganisms used for plant protection (SANTE/2020/12260): https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-11/pesticides_ppp_app-proc_guide_180652_microorganism-amr_202011.pdf.’

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/11

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/224

of 2 February 2023

amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (1), and in particular Article 71(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | African swine fever is an infectious viral disease affecting kept and wild porcine animals and can have a severe impact on the concerned animal population and the profitability of farming causing disturbance to movements of consignments of those animals and products thereof within the Union and exports to third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

African swine fever is an infectious viral disease affecting kept and wild porcine animals and can have a severe impact on the concerned animal population and the profitability of farming causing disturbance to movements of consignments of those animals and products thereof within the Union and exports to third countries.

| (2) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 (2) was adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429, and it lays down special disease control measures regarding African swine fever to be applied for a limited period of time by the Member States listed in Annex I thereto (the Member States concerned), in restricted zones I, II and III listed in that Annex. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 (2) was adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429, and it lays down special disease control measures regarding African swine fever to be applied for a limited period of time by the Member States listed in Annex I thereto (the Member States concerned), in restricted zones I, II and III listed in that Annex.

| (3) | The areas listed as restricted zones I, II and III in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 are based on the epidemiological situation of African swine fever in the Union. Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 was last amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/141 (3) following changes in the epidemiological situation as regards that disease in Poland and Slovakia. Since the date of adoption of that Implementing Regulation, the epidemiological situation as regards that disease in certain Member States concerned has evolved. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The areas listed as restricted zones I, II and III in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 are based on the epidemiological situation of African swine fever in the Union. Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 was last amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/141 (3) following changes in the epidemiological situation as regards that disease in Poland and Slovakia. Since the date of adoption of that Implementing Regulation, the epidemiological situation as regards that disease in certain Member States concerned has evolved.

| (4) | Any amendments to restricted zones I, II and III in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 should be based on the epidemiological situation as regards African swine fever in the areas affected by that disease and the overall epidemiological situation of African swine fever in the Member State concerned, the level of risk for the further spread of that disease, as well as scientifically based principles and criteria for geographically defining zoning due to African swine fever and the Union’s guidelines agreed with the Member States at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed and publicly available on the Commission’s website (4). Such amendments should also take account of international standards, such as the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (5) of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and justifications for zoning provided by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Any amendments to restricted zones I, II and III in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 should be based on the epidemiological situation as regards African swine fever in the areas affected by that disease and the overall epidemiological situation of African swine fever in the Member State concerned, the level of risk for the further spread of that disease, as well as scientifically based principles and criteria for geographically defining zoning due to African swine fever and the Union’s guidelines agreed with the Member States at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed and publicly available on the Commission’s website (4). Such amendments should also take account of international standards, such as the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (5) of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and justifications for zoning provided by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.

| (5) | Since the date of adoption of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/141 there have been several outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in Greece, Italy and Poland. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Since the date of adoption of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/141 there have been several outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in Greece, Italy and Poland.

| (6) | In January 2023, two outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals were observed in the Serres region in Greece, in an area currently listed as a restricted zone I, in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. Those new outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals constitute an increased level of risk, which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Greece currently listed as a restricted zone I in that Annex, affected by those recent outbreaks of African swine fever, should now be listed as a restricted zone II in that Annex and the current boundaries of restricted zone I also need to be redefined to take account of those recent outbreaks. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In January 2023, two outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals were observed in the Serres region in Greece, in an area currently listed as a restricted zone I, in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. Those new outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals constitute an increased level of risk, which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Greece currently listed as a restricted zone I in that Annex, affected by those recent outbreaks of African swine fever, should now be listed as a restricted zone II in that Annex and the current boundaries of restricted zone I also need to be redefined to take account of those recent outbreaks.

| (7) | Also, in January 2023, one outbreak of African swine fever in a wild porcine animal was observed in the Opolskie region in Poland, in an area currently listed as a restricted zone I, in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. This new outbreak of African swine fever in a wild porcine animal constitutes an increased level of risk, which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Poland currently listed as a restricted zone I in that Annex, affected by this recent outbreak of African swine fever, should now be listed as a restricted zone II in that Annex and the current boundaries of restricted zone I also need to be redefined to take account of this recent outbreak. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Also, in January 2023, one outbreak of African swine fever in a wild porcine animal was observed in the Opolskie region in Poland, in an area currently listed as a restricted zone I, in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. This new outbreak of African swine fever in a wild porcine animal constitutes an increased level of risk, which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, this area of Poland currently listed as a restricted zone I in that Annex, affected by this recent outbreak of African swine fever, should now be listed as a restricted zone II in that Annex and the current boundaries of restricted zone I also need to be redefined to take account of this recent outbreak.

| (8) | Finally, in January 2023, several outbreak of African swine fever in wild porcine animals were observed in the Piedmont and Liguria regions in Italy, in areas currently listed as a restricted zone II in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 located in close proximity to areas currently listed as restricted zones I in that Annex. Those new outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals constitute an increased level of risk, which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, those areas of Italy currently listed as a restricted zone I in that Annex, affected by those recent outbreaks of African swine fever, should now be listed as a restricted zones II in that Annex and the current boundaries of restricted zones I also need to be redefined to take account of those recent outbreaks. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Finally, in January 2023, several outbreak of African swine fever in wild porcine animals were observed in the Piedmont and Liguria regions in Italy, in areas currently listed as a restricted zone II in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 located in close proximity to areas currently listed as restricted zones I in that Annex. Those new outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals constitute an increased level of risk, which should be reflected in that Annex. Accordingly, those areas of Italy currently listed as a restricted zone I in that Annex, affected by those recent outbreaks of African swine fever, should now be listed as a restricted zones II in that Annex and the current boundaries of restricted zones I also need to be redefined to take account of those recent outbreaks.

| (9) | Following those recent outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in Greece, Italy and Poland and taking into account the current epidemiological situation as regards African swine fever in the Union, zoning in those Member States has been reassessed and updated in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. In addition, the risk management measures in place have also been reassessed and updated. These changes should be reflected in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Following those recent outbreaks of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in Greece, Italy and Poland and taking into account the current epidemiological situation as regards African swine fever in the Union, zoning in those Member States has been reassessed and updated in accordance with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605. In addition, the risk management measures in place have also been reassessed and updated. These changes should be reflected in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605.

| (10) | In order to take account of the recent developments in the epidemiological situation of African swine fever in the Union, and in order to combat the risks associated with the spread of that disease in a proactive manner new restricted zones of a sufficient size should be demarcated for Greece, Italy and Poland and listed as restricted zones I and II. As the situation as regards African swine fever is very dynamic in the Union, when demarcating those new restricted zones, account has been taken of the epidemiological situation in the surrounding areas. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In order to take account of the recent developments in the epidemiological situation of African swine fever in the Union, and in order to combat the risks associated with the spread of that disease in a proactive manner new restricted zones of a sufficient size should be demarcated for Greece, Italy and Poland and listed as restricted zones I and II. As the situation as regards African swine fever is very dynamic in the Union, when demarcating those new restricted zones, account has been taken of the epidemiological situation in the surrounding areas.

| (11) | Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of African swine fever, it is important that the amendments to be made to Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 by this Implementing Regulation take effect as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of African swine fever, it is important that the amendments to be made to Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 by this Implementing Regulation take effect as soon as possible.

| (12) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2023.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 of 7 April 2021 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (OJ L 129, 15.4.2021, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/141 of 19 January 2023 amending Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 laying down special control measures for African swine fever (OJ L 19, 20.1.2023, p. 94).

3

(4)  Working Document SANTE/7112/2015/Rev. 3 ‘Principles and criteria for geographically defining ASF regionalisation’. https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/animal-diseases/control-measures/asf_en.

4

(5)  OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 29th Edition, 2021. Volumes I and II ISBN 978-92-95115-40-8; https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/.

5

---

ANNEX

Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/605 is replaced by the following:

‘ANNEX I

RESTRICTED ZONES

PART I

1.   Germany

The following restricted zones I in Germany:

| Bundesland Brandenburg:





  Landkreis Dahme-Spreewald:





  Gemeinde Alt Zauche-Wußwerk, |
| --- |

Bundesland Brandenburg:

Landkreis Dahme-Spreewald:

Gemeinde Alt Zauche-Wußwerk,

| Gemeinde Byhleguhre-Byhlen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Byhleguhre-Byhlen,

| Gemeinde Märkische Heide, mit den Gemarkungen Alt Schadow, Neu Schadow, Pretschen, Plattkow, Wittmannsdorf, Schuhlen-Wiese, Bückchen, Kuschkow, Gröditsch, Groß Leuthen, Leibchel, Glietz, Groß Leine, Dollgen, Krugau, Dürrenhofe, Biebersdorf und Klein Leine, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Märkische Heide, mit den Gemarkungen Alt Schadow, Neu Schadow, Pretschen, Plattkow, Wittmannsdorf, Schuhlen-Wiese, Bückchen, Kuschkow, Gröditsch, Groß Leuthen, Leibchel, Glietz, Groß Leine, Dollgen, Krugau, Dürrenhofe, Biebersdorf und Klein Leine,

| Gemeinde Neu Zauche, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neu Zauche,

| Gemeinde Schwielochsee mit den Gemarkungen Groß Liebitz, Guhlen, Mochow und Siegadel, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schwielochsee mit den Gemarkungen Groß Liebitz, Guhlen, Mochow und Siegadel,

| Gemeinde Spreewaldheide, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Spreewaldheide,

| Gemeinde Straupitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Straupitz,

| Landkreis Märkisch-Oderland:





  Gemeinde Müncheberg mit den Gemarkungen Müncheberg, Eggersdorf bei Müncheberg und Hoppegarten bei Müncheberg, |
| --- |

Landkreis Märkisch-Oderland:

Gemeinde Müncheberg mit den Gemarkungen Müncheberg, Eggersdorf bei Müncheberg und Hoppegarten bei Müncheberg,

| Gemeinde Bliesdorf mit den Gemarkungen Kunersdorf - westlich der B167 und Bliesdorf - westlich der B167 |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bliesdorf mit den Gemarkungen Kunersdorf - westlich der B167 und Bliesdorf - westlich der B167

| Gemeinde Märkische Höhe mit den Gemarkungen Reichenberg und Batzlow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Märkische Höhe mit den Gemarkungen Reichenberg und Batzlow,

| Gemeinde Wriezen mit den Gemarkungen Haselberg, Frankenfelde, Schulzendorf, Lüdersdorf Biesdorf, Rathsdorf - westlich der B 167 und Wriezen - westlich der B167 |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wriezen mit den Gemarkungen Haselberg, Frankenfelde, Schulzendorf, Lüdersdorf Biesdorf, Rathsdorf - westlich der B 167 und Wriezen - westlich der B167

| Gemeinde Buckow (Märkische Schweiz), |
| --- |

Gemeinde Buckow (Märkische Schweiz),

| Gemeinde Strausberg mit den Gemarkungen Hohenstein und Ruhlsdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Strausberg mit den Gemarkungen Hohenstein und Ruhlsdorf,

| Gemeine Garzau-Garzin, |
| --- |

Gemeine Garzau-Garzin,

| Gemeinde Waldsieversdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Waldsieversdorf,

| Gemeinde Rehfelde mit der Gemarkung Werder, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Rehfelde mit der Gemarkung Werder,

| Gemeinde Reichenow-Mögelin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Reichenow-Mögelin,

| Gemeinde Prötzel mit den Gemarkungen Harnekop, Sternebeck und Prötzel östlich der B 168 und der L35, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Prötzel mit den Gemarkungen Harnekop, Sternebeck und Prötzel östlich der B 168 und der L35,

| Gemeinde Oberbarnim, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Oberbarnim,

| Gemeinde Bad Freienwalde mit der Gemarkung Sonnenburg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bad Freienwalde mit der Gemarkung Sonnenburg,

| Gemeinde Falkenberg mit den Gemarkungen Dannenberg, Falkenberg westlich der L 35, Gersdorf und Kruge, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Falkenberg mit den Gemarkungen Dannenberg, Falkenberg westlich der L 35, Gersdorf und Kruge,

| Gemeinde Höhenland mit den Gemarkungen Steinbeck, Wollenberg und Wölsickendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Höhenland mit den Gemarkungen Steinbeck, Wollenberg und Wölsickendorf,

| Landkreis Barnim:





  Gemeinde Joachimsthal östlich der L220 (Eberswalder Straße), östlich der L23 (Töpferstraße und Templiner Straße), östlich der L239 (Glambecker Straße) und Schorfheide (JO) östlich der L238, |
| --- |

Landkreis Barnim:

Gemeinde Joachimsthal östlich der L220 (Eberswalder Straße), östlich der L23 (Töpferstraße und Templiner Straße), östlich der L239 (Glambecker Straße) und Schorfheide (JO) östlich der L238,

| Gemeinde Friedrichswalde mit der Gemarkung Glambeck östlich der L 239, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Friedrichswalde mit der Gemarkung Glambeck östlich der L 239,

| Gemeinde Althüttendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Althüttendorf,

| Gemeinde Ziethen mit den Gemarkungen Groß Ziethen und Klein Ziethen westlich der B198, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ziethen mit den Gemarkungen Groß Ziethen und Klein Ziethen westlich der B198,

| Gemeinde Chorin mit den Gemarkungen Golzow, Senftenhütte, Buchholz, Schorfheide (Ch), Chorin westlich der L200 und Sandkrug nördlich der L200, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Chorin mit den Gemarkungen Golzow, Senftenhütte, Buchholz, Schorfheide (Ch), Chorin westlich der L200 und Sandkrug nördlich der L200,

| Gemeinde Britz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Britz,

| Gemeinde Schorfheide mit den Gemarkungen Altenhof, Werbellin, Lichterfelde und Finowfurt, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schorfheide mit den Gemarkungen Altenhof, Werbellin, Lichterfelde und Finowfurt,

| Gemeinde (Stadt) Eberswalde mit der Gemarkungen Finow und Spechthausen und der Gemarkung Eberswalde südlich der B167 und westlich der L200, |
| --- |

Gemeinde (Stadt) Eberswalde mit der Gemarkungen Finow und Spechthausen und der Gemarkung Eberswalde südlich der B167 und westlich der L200,

| Gemeinde Breydin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Breydin,

| Gemeinde Melchow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Melchow,

| Gemeinde Sydower Fließ mit der Gemarkung Grüntal nördlich der K6006 (Landstraße nach Tuchen), östlich der Schönholzer Straße und östlich Am Postweg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Sydower Fließ mit der Gemarkung Grüntal nördlich der K6006 (Landstraße nach Tuchen), östlich der Schönholzer Straße und östlich Am Postweg,

| Hohenfinow südlich der B167, |
| --- |

Hohenfinow südlich der B167,

| Landkreis Uckermark:





  Gemeinde Passow mit den Gemarkungen Briest, Passow und Schönow, |
| --- |

Landkreis Uckermark:

Gemeinde Passow mit den Gemarkungen Briest, Passow und Schönow,

| Gemeinde Mark Landin mit den Gemarkungen Landin nördlich der B2, Grünow und Schönermark, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Mark Landin mit den Gemarkungen Landin nördlich der B2, Grünow und Schönermark,

| Gemeinde Angermünde mit den Gemarkungen Frauenhagen, Mürow, Angermünde nördlich und nordwestlich der B2, Dobberzin nördlich der B2, Kerkow, Welsow, Bruchhagen, Greiffenberg, Günterberg, Biesenbrow, Görlsdorf, Wolletz und Altkünkendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Angermünde mit den Gemarkungen Frauenhagen, Mürow, Angermünde nördlich und nordwestlich der B2, Dobberzin nördlich der B2, Kerkow, Welsow, Bruchhagen, Greiffenberg, Günterberg, Biesenbrow, Görlsdorf, Wolletz und Altkünkendorf,

| Gemeinde Zichow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Zichow,

| Gemeinde Casekow mit den Gemarkungen Blumberg, Wartin, Luckow-Petershagen und den Gemarkungen Biesendahlshof und Casekow westlich der L272 und nördlich der L27, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Casekow mit den Gemarkungen Blumberg, Wartin, Luckow-Petershagen und den Gemarkungen Biesendahlshof und Casekow westlich der L272 und nördlich der L27,

| Gemeinde Hohenselchow-Groß Pinnow mit der Gemarkung Hohenselchow nördlich der L27, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hohenselchow-Groß Pinnow mit der Gemarkung Hohenselchow nördlich der L27,

| Gemeinde Tantow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Tantow,

| Gemeinde Mescherin mit der Gemarkung Radekow, der Gemarkung Rosow südlich der K 7311 und der Gemarkung Neurochlitz westlich der B2, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Mescherin mit der Gemarkung Radekow, der Gemarkung Rosow südlich der K 7311 und der Gemarkung Neurochlitz westlich der B2,

| Gemeinde Gartz (Oder) mit der Gemarkung Geesow westlich der B2 sowie den Gemarkungen Gartz und Hohenreinkendorf nördlich der L27 und der B2 bis zur Kastanienallee, dort links abbiegend dem Schülerweg folgend bis Höhe Bahnhof, von hier in östlicher Richtung den Salveybach kreuzend bis zum Tantower Weg, diesen in nördlicher Richtung bis zu Stettiner Straße, diese weiter folgend bis zur B2, dieser in nördlicher Richtung folgend, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gartz (Oder) mit der Gemarkung Geesow westlich der B2 sowie den Gemarkungen Gartz und Hohenreinkendorf nördlich der L27 und der B2 bis zur Kastanienallee, dort links abbiegend dem Schülerweg folgend bis Höhe Bahnhof, von hier in östlicher Richtung den Salveybach kreuzend bis zum Tantower Weg, diesen in nördlicher Richtung bis zu Stettiner Straße, diese weiter folgend bis zur B2, dieser in nördlicher Richtung folgend,

| Gemeinde Pinnow nördlich und westlich der B2, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Pinnow nördlich und westlich der B2,

| Landkreis Oder-Spree:





  Gemeinde Storkow (Mark), |
| --- |

Landkreis Oder-Spree:

Gemeinde Storkow (Mark),

| Gemeinde Spreenhagen mit den Gemarkungen Braunsdorf, Markgrafpieske, Lebbin und Spreenhagen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Spreenhagen mit den Gemarkungen Braunsdorf, Markgrafpieske, Lebbin und Spreenhagen,

| Gemeinde Grünheide (Mark) mit den Gemarkungen Kagel, Kienbaum und Hangelsberg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Grünheide (Mark) mit den Gemarkungen Kagel, Kienbaum und Hangelsberg,

| Gemeinde Fürstenwalde westlich der B 168 und nördlich der L 36, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Fürstenwalde westlich der B 168 und nördlich der L 36,

| Gemeinde Rauen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Rauen,

| Gemeinde Wendisch Rietz bis zur östlichen Uferzone des Scharmützelsees und von der südlichen Spitze des Scharmützelsees südlich der B246, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wendisch Rietz bis zur östlichen Uferzone des Scharmützelsees und von der südlichen Spitze des Scharmützelsees südlich der B246,

| Gemeinde Reichenwalde, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Reichenwalde,

| Gemeinde Bad Saarow mit der Gemarkung Petersdorf und der Gemarkung Bad Saarow-Pieskow westlich der östlichen Uferzone des Scharmützelsees und ab nördlicher Spitze westlich der L35, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bad Saarow mit der Gemarkung Petersdorf und der Gemarkung Bad Saarow-Pieskow westlich der östlichen Uferzone des Scharmützelsees und ab nördlicher Spitze westlich der L35,

| Gemeinde Tauche mit der Gemarkung Werder, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Tauche mit der Gemarkung Werder,

| Gemeinde Steinhöfel mit den Gemarkungen Jänickendorf, Schönfelde, Beerfelde, Gölsdorf, Buchholz, Tempelberg und den Gemarkungen Steinhöfel, Hasenfelde und Heinersdorf westlich der L36 und der Gemarkung Neuendorf im Sande nördlich der L36, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Steinhöfel mit den Gemarkungen Jänickendorf, Schönfelde, Beerfelde, Gölsdorf, Buchholz, Tempelberg und den Gemarkungen Steinhöfel, Hasenfelde und Heinersdorf westlich der L36 und der Gemarkung Neuendorf im Sande nördlich der L36,

| Landkreis Spree-Neiße:





  Gemeinde Turnow-Preilack mit der Gemarkung Turnow, |
| --- |

Landkreis Spree-Neiße:

Gemeinde Turnow-Preilack mit der Gemarkung Turnow,

| Gemeinde Drachhausen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Drachhausen,

| Gemeinde Schmogrow-Fehrow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schmogrow-Fehrow,

| Gemeinde Drehnow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Drehnow,

| Gemeinde Teichland mit den Gemarkungen Maust und Neuendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Teichland mit den Gemarkungen Maust und Neuendorf,

| Gemeinde Guhrow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Guhrow,

| Gemeinde Werben, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Werben,

| Gemeinde Dissen-Striesow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Dissen-Striesow,

| Gemeinde Briesen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Briesen,

| Gemeinde Kolkwitz mit den Gemarkungen Klein Gaglow, Hähnchen, Kolkwitz, Glinzig und Krieschow nördl. der BAB 15, Gulben, Papitz, Babow, Eichow, Limberg und Milkersdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kolkwitz mit den Gemarkungen Klein Gaglow, Hähnchen, Kolkwitz, Glinzig und Krieschow nördl. der BAB 15, Gulben, Papitz, Babow, Eichow, Limberg und Milkersdorf,

| Gemeinde Burg (Spreewald) |
| --- |

Gemeinde Burg (Spreewald)

| Kreisfreie Stadt Cottbus außer den Gemarkungen Kahren, Gallinchen, Groß Gaglow und der Gemarkung Kiekebusch südlich der BAB, |
| --- |

Kreisfreie Stadt Cottbus außer den Gemarkungen Kahren, Gallinchen, Groß Gaglow und der Gemarkung Kiekebusch südlich der BAB,

| Landkreis Oberspreewald-Lausitz:





  Gemeinde Lauchhammer, |
| --- |

Landkreis Oberspreewald-Lausitz:

Gemeinde Lauchhammer,

| Gemeinde Schwarzheide, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schwarzheide,

| Gemeinde Schipkau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schipkau,

| Gemeinde Senftenberg mit den Gemarkungen Brieske, Niemtsch, Senftenberg und Reppist, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Senftenberg mit den Gemarkungen Brieske, Niemtsch, Senftenberg und Reppist,

| die Gemeinde Schwarzbach mit der Gemarkung Biehlen, |
| --- |

die Gemeinde Schwarzbach mit der Gemarkung Biehlen,

| Gemeinde Großräschen mit den Gemarkungen Wormlage, Saalhausen, Barzig, Freienhufen, Großräschen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Großräschen mit den Gemarkungen Wormlage, Saalhausen, Barzig, Freienhufen, Großräschen,

| Gemeinde Vetschau/Spreewald mit den Gemarkungen: Naundorf, Fleißdorf, Suschow, Stradow, Göritz, Koßwig, Vetschau, Repten, Tornitz, Missen und Orgosen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Vetschau/Spreewald mit den Gemarkungen: Naundorf, Fleißdorf, Suschow, Stradow, Göritz, Koßwig, Vetschau, Repten, Tornitz, Missen und Orgosen,

| Gemeinde Calau mit den Gemarkungen: Kalkwitz, Mlode, Saßleben, Reuden, Bolschwitz, Säritz, Calau, Kemmen, Werchow und Gollmitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Calau mit den Gemarkungen: Kalkwitz, Mlode, Saßleben, Reuden, Bolschwitz, Säritz, Calau, Kemmen, Werchow und Gollmitz,

| Gemeinde Luckaitztal, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Luckaitztal,

| Gemeinde Bronkow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bronkow,

| Gemeinde Altdöbern mit der Gemarkung Altdöbern westlich der Bahnlinie, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Altdöbern mit der Gemarkung Altdöbern westlich der Bahnlinie,

| Gemeinde Tettau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Tettau,

| Landkreis Elbe-Elster:





  Gemeinde Großthiemig, |
| --- |

Landkreis Elbe-Elster:

Gemeinde Großthiemig,

| Gemeinde Hirschfeld, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hirschfeld,

| Gemeinde Gröden, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gröden,

| Gemeinde Schraden, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schraden,

| Gemeinde Merzdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Merzdorf,

| Gemeinde Röderland mit der Gemarkung Wainsdorf, Prösen, Stolzenhain a.d. Röder, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Röderland mit der Gemarkung Wainsdorf, Prösen, Stolzenhain a.d. Röder,

| Gemeinde Plessa mit der Gemarkung Plessa, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Plessa mit der Gemarkung Plessa,

| Landkreis Prignitz:





  Gemeinde Groß Pankow mit den Gemarkungen Baek, Tangendorf, Tacken, Hohenvier, Strigleben, Steinberg und Gulow, |
| --- |

Landkreis Prignitz:

Gemeinde Groß Pankow mit den Gemarkungen Baek, Tangendorf, Tacken, Hohenvier, Strigleben, Steinberg und Gulow,

| Gemeinde Perleberg mit der Gemarkung Schönfeld, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Perleberg mit der Gemarkung Schönfeld,

| Gemeinde Karstädt mit den Gemarkungen Postlin, Strehlen, Blüthen, Klockow, Premslin, Glövzin, Waterloo, Karstädt, Dargardt, Garlin und die Gemarkungen Groß Warnow, Klein Warnow, Reckenzin, Streesow und Dallmin westlich der Bahnstrecke Berlin/Spandau-Hamburg/Altona, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Karstädt mit den Gemarkungen Postlin, Strehlen, Blüthen, Klockow, Premslin, Glövzin, Waterloo, Karstädt, Dargardt, Garlin und die Gemarkungen Groß Warnow, Klein Warnow, Reckenzin, Streesow und Dallmin westlich der Bahnstrecke Berlin/Spandau-Hamburg/Altona,

| Gemeinde Gülitz-Reetz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gülitz-Reetz,

| Gemeinde Putlitz mit den Gemarkungen Lockstädt, Mansfeld und Laaske, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Putlitz mit den Gemarkungen Lockstädt, Mansfeld und Laaske,

| Gemeinde Triglitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Triglitz,

| Gemeinde Marienfließ mit der Gemarkung Frehne, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Marienfließ mit der Gemarkung Frehne,

| Gemeinde Kümmernitztal mit der Gemarkungen Buckow, Preddöhl und Grabow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kümmernitztal mit der Gemarkungen Buckow, Preddöhl und Grabow,

| Gemeinde Gerdshagen mit der Gemarkung Gerdshagen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gerdshagen mit der Gemarkung Gerdshagen,

| Gemeinde Meyenburg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Meyenburg,

| Gemeinde Pritzwalk mit der Gemarkung Steffenshagen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Pritzwalk mit der Gemarkung Steffenshagen,

| Bundesland Sachsen:





  Stadt Dresden:





  Stadtgebiet, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Bundesland Sachsen:

Stadt Dresden:

Stadtgebiet, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Landkreis Meißen:





  Gemeinde Diera-Zehren, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Landkreis Meißen:

Gemeinde Diera-Zehren, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Glaubitz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Glaubitz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Hirschstein, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hirschstein,

| Gemeinde Käbschütztal, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Käbschütztal,

| Gemeinde Klipphausen, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Klipphausen, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Niederau, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Niederau, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Nünchritz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Nünchritz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Röderaue, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Röderaue, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Stadt Gröditz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Gröditz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Stadt Lommatzsch, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Lommatzsch,

| Gemeinde Stadt Meißen, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Meißen, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Stadt Nossen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Nossen,

| Gemeinde Stadt Riesa, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Riesa,

| Gemeinde Stadt Strehla, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Strehla,

| Gemeinde Stauchitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stauchitz,

| Gemeinde Wülknitz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wülknitz, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Gemeinde Zeithain, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Zeithain,

| Landkreis Mittelsachsen:





  Gemeinde Großweitzschen mit den Ortsteilen Döschütz, Gadewitz, Niederranschütz, Redemitz, |
| --- |

Landkreis Mittelsachsen:

Gemeinde Großweitzschen mit den Ortsteilen Döschütz, Gadewitz, Niederranschütz, Redemitz,

| Gemeinde Ostrau mit den Ortsteilen Auerschütz, Beutig, Binnewitz, Clanzschwitz, Delmschütz, Döhlen, Jahna, Kattnitz, Kiebitz, Merschütz, Münchhof, Niederlützschera, Noschkowitz, Oberlützschera, Obersteina, Ostrau, Pulsitz, Rittmitz, Schlagwitz, Schmorren, Schrebitz, Sömnitz, Trebanitz, Zschochau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ostrau mit den Ortsteilen Auerschütz, Beutig, Binnewitz, Clanzschwitz, Delmschütz, Döhlen, Jahna, Kattnitz, Kiebitz, Merschütz, Münchhof, Niederlützschera, Noschkowitz, Oberlützschera, Obersteina, Ostrau, Pulsitz, Rittmitz, Schlagwitz, Schmorren, Schrebitz, Sömnitz, Trebanitz, Zschochau,

| Gemeinde Reinsberg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Reinsberg,

| Gemeinde Stadt Döbeln mit den Ortsteilen Beicha, Bormitz, Choren, Döbeln, Dreißig, Geleitshäuser, Gertitzsch, Gödelitz, Großsteinbach, Juchhöh, Kleinmockritz, Leschen, Lüttewitz, Maltitz, Markritz, Meila, Mochau, Nelkanitz, Oberranschütz, Petersberg, Präbschütz, Prüfern, Schallhausen, Schweimnitz, Simselwitz, Theeschütz, Zschackwitz, Zschäschütz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Döbeln mit den Ortsteilen Beicha, Bormitz, Choren, Döbeln, Dreißig, Geleitshäuser, Gertitzsch, Gödelitz, Großsteinbach, Juchhöh, Kleinmockritz, Leschen, Lüttewitz, Maltitz, Markritz, Meila, Mochau, Nelkanitz, Oberranschütz, Petersberg, Präbschütz, Prüfern, Schallhausen, Schweimnitz, Simselwitz, Theeschütz, Zschackwitz, Zschäschütz,

| Gemeinde Stadt Großschirma mit den Ortsteilen Obergruna, Siebenlehn, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Großschirma mit den Ortsteilen Obergruna, Siebenlehn,

| Gemeinde Stadt Roßwein mit den Ortsteilen Gleisberg, Haßlau, Klinge, Naußlitz, Neuseifersdorf, Niederforst, Ossig, Roßwein, Seifersdorf, Wettersdorf, Wetterwitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Roßwein mit den Ortsteilen Gleisberg, Haßlau, Klinge, Naußlitz, Neuseifersdorf, Niederforst, Ossig, Roßwein, Seifersdorf, Wettersdorf, Wetterwitz,

| Gemeinde Striegistal mit den Ortsteilen Gersdorf, Kummersheim, Marbach, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Striegistal mit den Ortsteilen Gersdorf, Kummersheim, Marbach,

| Gemeinde Zschaitz-Ottewig, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Zschaitz-Ottewig,

| Landkreis Nordsachsen:





  Gemeinde Arzberg mit den Ortsteilen Stehla, Tauschwitz, |
| --- |

Landkreis Nordsachsen:

Gemeinde Arzberg mit den Ortsteilen Stehla, Tauschwitz,

| Gemeinde Cavertitz mit den Ortsteilen Außig, Cavertitz, Klingenhain, Schirmenitz, Treptitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Cavertitz mit den Ortsteilen Außig, Cavertitz, Klingenhain, Schirmenitz, Treptitz,

| Gemeinde Liebschützberg mit den Ortsteilen Borna, Bornitz, Clanzschwitz, Ganzig, Kleinragewitz, Laas, Leckwitz, Liebschütz, Sahlassan, Schönnewitz, Terpitz östlich der Querung am Käferberg, Wadewitz, Zaußwitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Liebschützberg mit den Ortsteilen Borna, Bornitz, Clanzschwitz, Ganzig, Kleinragewitz, Laas, Leckwitz, Liebschütz, Sahlassan, Schönnewitz, Terpitz östlich der Querung am Käferberg, Wadewitz, Zaußwitz,

| Gemeinde Naundorf mit den Ortsteilen Casabra, Gastewitz, Haage, Hof, Hohenwussen, Kreina, Nasenberg, Raitzen, Reppen, Salbitz, Stennschütz, Zeicha, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Naundorf mit den Ortsteilen Casabra, Gastewitz, Haage, Hof, Hohenwussen, Kreina, Nasenberg, Raitzen, Reppen, Salbitz, Stennschütz, Zeicha,

| Gemeinde Stadt Belgern-Schildau mit den Ortsteilen Ammelgoßwitz, Dröschkau, Liebersee östlich der B182, Oelzschau, Seydewitz, Staritz, Wohlau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Belgern-Schildau mit den Ortsteilen Ammelgoßwitz, Dröschkau, Liebersee östlich der B182, Oelzschau, Seydewitz, Staritz, Wohlau,

| Gemeinde Stadt Mügeln mit den Ortsteilen Mahris, Schweta südlich der K8908, Zschannewitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Mügeln mit den Ortsteilen Mahris, Schweta südlich der K8908, Zschannewitz,

| Gemeinde Stadt Oschatz mit den Ortsteilen Lonnewitz östlich des Sandbaches und nördlich der B6, Oschatz östlich des Schmorkauer Wegs und nördlich der S28, Rechau, Schmorkau, Zöschau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Oschatz mit den Ortsteilen Lonnewitz östlich des Sandbaches und nördlich der B6, Oschatz östlich des Schmorkauer Wegs und nördlich der S28, Rechau, Schmorkau, Zöschau,

| Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge:





  Gemeinde Bannewitz, |
| --- |

Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge:

Gemeinde Bannewitz,

| Gemeinde Dürrröhrsdorf-Dittersbach, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Dürrröhrsdorf-Dittersbach,

| Gemeinde Kreischa, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kreischa,

| Gemeinde Lohmen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lohmen,

| Gemeinde Müglitztal, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Müglitztal,

| Gemeinde Stadt Dohna, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Dohna,

| Gemeinde Stadt Freital, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Freital,

| Gemeinde Stadt Heidenau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Heidenau,

| Gemeinde Stadt Hohnstein, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Hohnstein,

| Gemeinde Stadt Neustadt i. Sa., |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Neustadt i. Sa.,

| Gemeinde Stadt Pirna, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Pirna,

| Gemeinde Stadt Rabenau mit den Ortsteilen Lübau, Obernaundorf, Oelsa, Rabenau und Spechtritz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Rabenau mit den Ortsteilen Lübau, Obernaundorf, Oelsa, Rabenau und Spechtritz,

| Gemeinde Stadt Stolpen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Stolpen,

| Gemeinde Stadt Tharandt mit den Ortsteilen Fördergersdorf, Großopitz, Kurort Hartha, Pohrsdorf und Spechtshausen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Tharandt mit den Ortsteilen Fördergersdorf, Großopitz, Kurort Hartha, Pohrsdorf und Spechtshausen,

| Gemeinde Stadt Wilsdruff, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Wilsdruff, sofern nicht bereits Teil der Sperrzone II,

| Bundesland Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:





  Landkreis Vorpommern Greifswald





  Gemeinde Penkun, |
| --- |

Bundesland Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:

Landkreis Vorpommern Greifswald

Gemeinde Penkun,

| Gemeinde Nadrensee, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Nadrensee,

| Gemeinde Krackow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Krackow,

| Gemeinde Glasow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Glasow,

| Gemeinde Grambow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Grambow,

| Landkreis Ludwigslust-Parchim:





  Gemeinde Barkhagen mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Altenlinden, Kolonie Lalchow, Plauerhagen, Zarchlin, Barkow-Ausbau, Barkow, |
| --- |

Landkreis Ludwigslust-Parchim:

Gemeinde Barkhagen mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Altenlinden, Kolonie Lalchow, Plauerhagen, Zarchlin, Barkow-Ausbau, Barkow,

| Gemeinde Blievenstorf mit dem Ortsteil: Blievenstorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Blievenstorf mit dem Ortsteil: Blievenstorf,

| Gemeinde Brenz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Neu Brenz, Alt Brenz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Brenz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Neu Brenz, Alt Brenz,

| Gemeinde Domsühl mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Severin, Bergrade Hof, Bergrade Dorf, Zieslübbe, Alt Dammerow, Schlieven, Domsühl, Domsühl-Ausbau, Neu Schlieven, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Domsühl mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Severin, Bergrade Hof, Bergrade Dorf, Zieslübbe, Alt Dammerow, Schlieven, Domsühl, Domsühl-Ausbau, Neu Schlieven,

| Gemeinde Gallin-Kuppentin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Kuppentin, Kuppentin-Ausbau, Daschow, Zahren, Gallin, Penzlin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gallin-Kuppentin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Kuppentin, Kuppentin-Ausbau, Daschow, Zahren, Gallin, Penzlin,

| Gemeinde Ganzlin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dresenow, Dresenower Mühle, Twietfort, Ganzlin, Tönchow, Wendisch Priborn, Liebhof, Gnevsdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ganzlin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dresenow, Dresenower Mühle, Twietfort, Ganzlin, Tönchow, Wendisch Priborn, Liebhof, Gnevsdorf,

| Gemeinde Granzin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Lindenbeck, Greven, Beckendorf, Bahlenrade, Granzin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Granzin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Lindenbeck, Greven, Beckendorf, Bahlenrade, Granzin,

| Gemeinde Grabow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Fresenbrügge, Grabow, Griemoor, Heidehof, Kaltehof, Winkelmoor, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Grabow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Fresenbrügge, Grabow, Griemoor, Heidehof, Kaltehof, Winkelmoor,

| Gemeinde Groß Laasch mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Groß Laasch, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Groß Laasch mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Groß Laasch,

| Gemeinde Kremmin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Beckentin, Kremmin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kremmin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Beckentin, Kremmin,

| Gemeinde Kritzow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Schlemmin, Kritzow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kritzow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Schlemmin, Kritzow,

| Gemeinde Lewitzrand mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Matzlow-Garwitz (teilweise),
  Gemeinde Lübz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Bobzin, Broock, Broock Ausbau, Hof Gischow, Lübz, Lutheran, Lutheran Ausbau, Riederfelde, Ruthen, Wessentin, Wessentin Ausbau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lewitzrand mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Matzlow-Garwitz (teilweise),

Gemeinde Lübz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Bobzin, Broock, Broock Ausbau, Hof Gischow, Lübz, Lutheran, Lutheran Ausbau, Riederfelde, Ruthen, Wessentin, Wessentin Ausbau,

| Gemeinde Neustadt-Glewe mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Hohes Feld, Kiez, Klein Laasch, Liebs Siedlung, Neustadt-Glewe, Tuckhude, Wabel, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neustadt-Glewe mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Hohes Feld, Kiez, Klein Laasch, Liebs Siedlung, Neustadt-Glewe, Tuckhude, Wabel,

| Gemeinde Obere Warnow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Grebbin und Wozinkel, Gemarkung Kossebade teilweise, Gemarkung Herzberg mit dem Waldgebiet Bahlenholz bis an die östliche Gemeindegrenze, Gemarkung Woeten unmittelbar östlich und westlich der L16, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Obere Warnow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Grebbin und Wozinkel, Gemarkung Kossebade teilweise, Gemarkung Herzberg mit dem Waldgebiet Bahlenholz bis an die östliche Gemeindegrenze, Gemarkung Woeten unmittelbar östlich und westlich der L16,

| Gemeinde Parchim mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dargelütz, Neuhof, Kiekindemark, Neu Klockow, Möderitz, Malchow, Damm, Parchim, Voigtsdorf, Neu Matzlow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Parchim mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dargelütz, Neuhof, Kiekindemark, Neu Klockow, Möderitz, Malchow, Damm, Parchim, Voigtsdorf, Neu Matzlow,

| Gemeinde Passow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Unterbrüz, Brüz, Welzin, Neu Brüz, Weisin, Charlottenhof, Passow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Passow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Unterbrüz, Brüz, Welzin, Neu Brüz, Weisin, Charlottenhof, Passow,

| Gemeinde Plau am See mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Reppentin, Gaarz, Silbermühle, Appelburg, Seelust, Plau-Am See, Plötzenhöhe, Klebe, Lalchow, Quetzin, Heidekrug, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Plau am See mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Reppentin, Gaarz, Silbermühle, Appelburg, Seelust, Plau-Am See, Plötzenhöhe, Klebe, Lalchow, Quetzin, Heidekrug,

| Gemeinde Rom mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Lancken, Stralendorf, Rom, Darze, Paarsch, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Rom mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Lancken, Stralendorf, Rom, Darze, Paarsch,

| Gemeinde Spornitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dütschow, Primark, Steinbeck, Spornitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Spornitz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dütschow, Primark, Steinbeck, Spornitz,

| Gemeinde Werder mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Neu Benthen, Benthen, Tannenhof, Werder. |
| --- |

Gemeinde Werder mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Neu Benthen, Benthen, Tannenhof, Werder.

2.   Estonia

The following restricted zones I in Estonia:

| — | Hiiu maakond. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hiiu maakond.

3.   Latvia

The following restricted zones I in Latvia:

| — | Dienvidkurzemes novada, Grobiņas pagasts, Nīcas pagasta daļa uz ziemeļiem no apdzīvotas vietas Bernāti, autoceļa V1232, A11, V1222, Bārtas upes, Otaņķu pagasts, Grobiņas pilsēta, |
| --- | --- |

—

Dienvidkurzemes novada, Grobiņas pagasts, Nīcas pagasta daļa uz ziemeļiem no apdzīvotas vietas Bernāti, autoceļa V1232, A11, V1222, Bārtas upes, Otaņķu pagasts, Grobiņas pilsēta,

| — | Ropažu novada Stopiņu pagasta daļa, kas atrodas uz rietumiem no autoceļa V36, P4 un P5, Acones ielas, Dauguļupes ielas un Dauguļupītes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ropažu novada Stopiņu pagasta daļa, kas atrodas uz rietumiem no autoceļa V36, P4 un P5, Acones ielas, Dauguļupes ielas un Dauguļupītes.

4.   Lithuania

The following restricted zones I in Lithuania:

| — | Kalvarijos savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kalvarijos savivaldybė,

| — | Klaipėdos rajono savivaldybė: Agluonėnų, Dovilų, Gargždų, Priekulės, Vėžaičių, Kretingalės ir Dauparų-Kvietinių seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Klaipėdos rajono savivaldybė: Agluonėnų, Dovilų, Gargždų, Priekulės, Vėžaičių, Kretingalės ir Dauparų-Kvietinių seniūnijos,

| — | Marijampolės savivaldybė išskyrus Šumskų ir Sasnavos seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Marijampolės savivaldybė išskyrus Šumskų ir Sasnavos seniūnijos,

| — | Palangos miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Palangos miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Vilkaviškio rajono savivaldybė: Bartninkų, Gražiškių, Keturvalakių, Pajevonio, Virbalio, Vištyčio seniūnijos. |
| --- | --- |

—

Vilkaviškio rajono savivaldybė: Bartninkų, Gražiškių, Keturvalakių, Pajevonio, Virbalio, Vištyčio seniūnijos.

5.   Hungary

The following restricted zones I in Hungary:

| — | Békés megye 950950, 950960, 950970, 951950, 952050, 952750, 952850, 952950, 953050, 953150, 953650, 953660, 953750, 953850, 953960, 954250, 954260, 954350, 954450, 954550, 954650, 954750, 954850, 954860, 954950, 955050, 955150, 955250, 955260, 955270, 955350, 955450, 955510, 955650, 955750, 955760, 955850, 955950, 956050, 956060, 956150 és 956160 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Békés megye 950950, 950960, 950970, 951950, 952050, 952750, 952850, 952950, 953050, 953150, 953650, 953660, 953750, 953850, 953960, 954250, 954260, 954350, 954450, 954550, 954650, 954750, 954850, 954860, 954950, 955050, 955150, 955250, 955260, 955270, 955350, 955450, 955510, 955650, 955750, 955760, 955850, 955950, 956050, 956060, 956150 és 956160 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Bács-Kiskun megye 600150, 600850, 601550, 601650, 601660, 601750, 601850, 601950, 602050, 603250, 603750 és 603850 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Bács-Kiskun megye 600150, 600850, 601550, 601650, 601660, 601750, 601850, 601950, 602050, 603250, 603750 és 603850 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Budapest 1 kódszámú, vadgazdálkodási tevékenységre nem alkalmas területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Budapest 1 kódszámú, vadgazdálkodási tevékenységre nem alkalmas területe,

| — | Csongrád-Csanád megye 800150, 800160, 800250, 802220, 802260, 802310 és 802450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Csongrád-Csanád megye 800150, 800160, 800250, 802220, 802260, 802310 és 802450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Fejér megye 400150, 400250, 400351, 400352, 400450, 400550, 401150, 401250, 401350, 402050, 402350, 402360, 402850, 402950, 403050, 403450, 403550, 403650, 403750, 403950, 403960, 403970, 404650, 404750, 404850, 404950, 404960, 405050, 405750, 405850, 405950, |
| --- | --- |

—

Fejér megye 400150, 400250, 400351, 400352, 400450, 400550, 401150, 401250, 401350, 402050, 402350, 402360, 402850, 402950, 403050, 403450, 403550, 403650, 403750, 403950, 403960, 403970, 404650, 404750, 404850, 404950, 404960, 405050, 405750, 405850, 405950,

| — | 406050, 406150, 406550, 406650 és 406750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

406050, 406150, 406550, 406650 és 406750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Győr-Moson-Sopron megye 100550, 100650, 100950, 101050, 101350, 101450, 101550, 101560 és 102150 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Győr-Moson-Sopron megye 100550, 100650, 100950, 101050, 101350, 101450, 101550, 101560 és 102150 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye 750150, 750160, 750260, 750350, 750450, 750460, 754450, 754550, 754560, 754570, 754650, 754750, 754950, 755050, 755150, 755250, 755350 és 755450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye 750150, 750160, 750260, 750350, 750450, 750460, 754450, 754550, 754560, 754570, 754650, 754750, 754950, 755050, 755150, 755250, 755350 és 755450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Komárom-Esztergom megye 250150, 250250, 250450, 250460, 250550, 250650, 250750, 251050, 251150, 251250, 251350, 251360, 251650, 251750, 251850, 252250, kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Komárom-Esztergom megye 250150, 250250, 250450, 250460, 250550, 250650, 250750, 251050, 251150, 251250, 251350, 251360, 251650, 251750, 251850, 252250, kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Pest megye 571550, 572150, 572250, 572350, 572550, 572650, 572750, 572850, 572950, 573150, 573250, 573260, 573350, 573360, 573450, 573850, 573950, 573960, 574050, 574150, 574350, 574360, 574550, 574650, 574750, 574850, 574860, 574950, 575050, 575150, 575250, 575350, 575550, 575650, 575750, 575850, 575950, 576050, 576150, 576250, 576350, 576450, 576650, 576750, 576850, 576950, 577050, 577150, 577350, 577450, 577650, 577850, 577950, 578050, 578150, 578250, 578350, 578360, 578450, 578550, 578560, 578650, 578850, 578950, 579050, 579150, 579250, 579350, 579450, 579460, 579550, 579650, 579750, 580250 és 580450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pest megye 571550, 572150, 572250, 572350, 572550, 572650, 572750, 572850, 572950, 573150, 573250, 573260, 573350, 573360, 573450, 573850, 573950, 573960, 574050, 574150, 574350, 574360, 574550, 574650, 574750, 574850, 574860, 574950, 575050, 575150, 575250, 575350, 575550, 575650, 575750, 575850, 575950, 576050, 576150, 576250, 576350, 576450, 576650, 576750, 576850, 576950, 577050, 577150, 577350, 577450, 577650, 577850, 577950, 578050, 578150, 578250, 578350, 578360, 578450, 578550, 578560, 578650, 578850, 578950, 579050, 579150, 579250, 579350, 579450, 579460, 579550, 579650, 579750, 580250 és 580450 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe.

6.   Poland

The following restricted zones I in Poland:

| w województwie kujawsko - pomorskim:





  powiat rypiński, |
| --- |

w województwie kujawsko - pomorskim:

powiat rypiński,

| powiat brodnicki, |
| --- |

powiat brodnicki,

| powiat grudziądzki, |
| --- |

powiat grudziądzki,

| powiat miejski Grudziądz, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Grudziądz,

| powiat wąbrzeski, |
| --- |

powiat wąbrzeski,

| w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:





  gmina Rozogi w powiecie szczycieńskim, |
| --- |

w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:

gmina Rozogi w powiecie szczycieńskim,

| w województwie podlaskim:





  gminy Wysokie Mazowieckie z miastem Wysokie Mazowieckie, Czyżew i część gminy Kulesze Kościelne położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową w powiecie wysokomazowieckim, |
| --- |

w województwie podlaskim:

gminy Wysokie Mazowieckie z miastem Wysokie Mazowieckie, Czyżew i część gminy Kulesze Kościelne położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową w powiecie wysokomazowieckim,

| powiat łomżyński, |
| --- |

powiat łomżyński,

| powiat kolneński, |
| --- |

powiat kolneński,

| powiat zambrowski, |
| --- |

powiat zambrowski,

| powiat miejski Łomża, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Łomża,

| w województwie mazowieckim:





  powiat ostrołęcki, |
| --- |

w województwie mazowieckim:

powiat ostrołęcki,

| powiat miejski Ostrołęka, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Ostrołęka,

| gminy Bielsk, Brudzeń Duży, Bulkowo, Drobin, Gąbin, Łąck, Nowy Duninów, Radzanowo, Słupno, Staroźreby i Stara Biała w powiecie płockim, |
| --- |

gminy Bielsk, Brudzeń Duży, Bulkowo, Drobin, Gąbin, Łąck, Nowy Duninów, Radzanowo, Słupno, Staroźreby i Stara Biała w powiecie płockim,

| powiat miejski Płock, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Płock,

| powiat ciechanowski, |
| --- |

powiat ciechanowski,

| gminy Baboszewo, Dzierzążnia, Joniec, Nowe Miasto, Płońsk i miasto Płońsk, Raciąż i miasto Raciąż, Sochocin w powiecie płońskim, |
| --- |

gminy Baboszewo, Dzierzążnia, Joniec, Nowe Miasto, Płońsk i miasto Płońsk, Raciąż i miasto Raciąż, Sochocin w powiecie płońskim,

| powiat sierpecki, |
| --- |

powiat sierpecki,

| gmina Bieżuń, Lutocin, Siemiątkowo i Żuromin w powiecie żuromińskim, |
| --- |

gmina Bieżuń, Lutocin, Siemiątkowo i Żuromin w powiecie żuromińskim,

| część powiatu ostrowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu ostrowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| gminy Dzieżgowo, Lipowiec Kościelny, Mława, Radzanów, Strzegowo, Stupsk, Szreńsk, Szydłowo, Wiśniewo w powiecie mławskim, |
| --- |

gminy Dzieżgowo, Lipowiec Kościelny, Mława, Radzanów, Strzegowo, Stupsk, Szreńsk, Szydłowo, Wiśniewo w powiecie mławskim,

| powiat przasnyski, |
| --- |

powiat przasnyski,

| powiat makowski, |
| --- |

powiat makowski,

| powiat pułtuski, |
| --- |

powiat pułtuski,

| część powiatu wyszkowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu wyszkowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| część powiatu węgrowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu węgrowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| część powiatu wołomińskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu wołomińskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| gminy Mokobody i Suchożebry w powiecie siedleckim, |
| --- |

gminy Mokobody i Suchożebry w powiecie siedleckim,

| gminy Dobre, Jakubów, Kałuszyn, Stanisławów w powiecie mińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Dobre, Jakubów, Kałuszyn, Stanisławów w powiecie mińskim,

| gminy Bielany i gmina wiejska Sokołów Podlaski w powiecie sokołowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Bielany i gmina wiejska Sokołów Podlaski w powiecie sokołowskim,

| powiat gostyniński, |
| --- |

powiat gostyniński,

| w województwie podkarpackim:





  gmina Krempna w powiecie jasielskim, |
| --- |

w województwie podkarpackim:

gmina Krempna w powiecie jasielskim,

| część powiatu ropczycko – sędziszowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu ropczycko – sędziszowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| gminy Pruchnik, Rokietnica, Roźwienica, w powiecie jarosławskim, |
| --- |

gminy Pruchnik, Rokietnica, Roźwienica, w powiecie jarosławskim,

| gminy Fredropol, Krasiczyn, Krzywcza, Przemyśl, część gminy Orły położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77, część gminy Żurawica na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77 w powiecie przemyskim, |
| --- |

gminy Fredropol, Krasiczyn, Krzywcza, Przemyśl, część gminy Orły położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77, część gminy Żurawica na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77 w powiecie przemyskim,

| powiat miejski Przemyśl, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Przemyśl,

| gminy Gać, Jawornik Polski, Kańczuga, część gminy Zarzecze położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Mleczka w powiecie przeworskim, |
| --- |

gminy Gać, Jawornik Polski, Kańczuga, część gminy Zarzecze położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Mleczka w powiecie przeworskim,

| powiat łańcucki, |
| --- |

powiat łańcucki,

| gminy Trzebownisko, Głogów Małopolski, część gminy Świlcza położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 94 i część gminy Sokołów Małopolski położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 875 w powiecie rzeszowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Trzebownisko, Głogów Małopolski, część gminy Świlcza położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 94 i część gminy Sokołów Małopolski położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 875 w powiecie rzeszowskim,

| gmina Raniżów w powiecie kolbuszowskim, |
| --- |

gmina Raniżów w powiecie kolbuszowskim,

| część powiatu dębickiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu dębickiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| w województwie świętokrzyskim:





  powiat buski, |
| --- |

w województwie świętokrzyskim:

powiat buski,

| powiat kazimierski, |
| --- |

powiat kazimierski,

| powiat skarżyski, |
| --- |

powiat skarżyski,

| część powiatu opatowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu opatowskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| część powiatu sandomierskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu sandomierskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| powiat staszowski, |
| --- |

powiat staszowski,

| gminy Pawłów, Wąchock, część gminy Brody położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 9 oraz na południowy - zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi: nr 0618T biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania w miejscowości Lipie, drogę biegnącą od miejscowości Lipie do wschodniej granicy gminy i część gminy Mirzec położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 744 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do miejscowości Tychów Stary a następnie przez drogę nr 0566T biegnącą od miejscowości Tychów Stary w kierunku północno - wschodnim do granicy gminy w powiecie starachowickim, |
| --- |

gminy Pawłów, Wąchock, część gminy Brody położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 9 oraz na południowy - zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi: nr 0618T biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania w miejscowości Lipie, drogę biegnącą od miejscowości Lipie do wschodniej granicy gminy i część gminy Mirzec położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 744 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do miejscowości Tychów Stary a następnie przez drogę nr 0566T biegnącą od miejscowości Tychów Stary w kierunku północno - wschodnim do granicy gminy w powiecie starachowickim,

| powiat ostrowiecki, |
| --- |

powiat ostrowiecki,

| gminy Fałków, Ruda Maleniecka, Radoszyce, Smyków, Słupia Konecka, część gminy Końskie położona na zachód od linii kolejowej, część gminy Stąporków położona na południe od linii kolejowej w powiecie koneckim, |
| --- |

gminy Fałków, Ruda Maleniecka, Radoszyce, Smyków, Słupia Konecka, część gminy Końskie położona na zachód od linii kolejowej, część gminy Stąporków położona na południe od linii kolejowej w powiecie koneckim,

| powiat pińczowski, |
| --- |

powiat pińczowski,

| powiat miejski Kielce, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Kielce,

| powiat kielecki, |
| --- |

powiat kielecki,

| powiat jędrzejowski, |
| --- |

powiat jędrzejowski,

| powiat włoszczowski, |
| --- |

powiat włoszczowski,

| w województwie łódzkim:





  gminy Łyszkowice, Kocierzew Południowy, Kiernozia, Chąśno, Nieborów, część gminy wiejskiej Łowicz położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 92 biegnącej od granicy miasta Łowicz do zachodniej granicy gminy oraz część gminy wiejskiej Łowicz położona na wschód od granicy miasta Łowicz i na północ od granicy gminy Nieborów w powiecie łowickim, |
| --- |

w województwie łódzkim:

gminy Łyszkowice, Kocierzew Południowy, Kiernozia, Chąśno, Nieborów, część gminy wiejskiej Łowicz położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 92 biegnącej od granicy miasta Łowicz do zachodniej granicy gminy oraz część gminy wiejskiej Łowicz położona na wschód od granicy miasta Łowicz i na północ od granicy gminy Nieborów w powiecie łowickim,

| gminy Cielądz, Rawa Mazowiecka z miastem Rawa Mazowiecka w powiecie rawskim, |
| --- |

gminy Cielądz, Rawa Mazowiecka z miastem Rawa Mazowiecka w powiecie rawskim,

| gminy Bolimów, Głuchów, Godzianów, Lipce Reymontowskie, Maków, Nowy Kawęczyn, Skierniewice, Słupia w powiecie skierniewickim, |
| --- |

gminy Bolimów, Głuchów, Godzianów, Lipce Reymontowskie, Maków, Nowy Kawęczyn, Skierniewice, Słupia w powiecie skierniewickim,

| powiat miejski Skierniewice, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Skierniewice,

| gminy Mniszków, Paradyż, Sławno i Żarnów w powiecie opoczyńskim, |
| --- |

gminy Mniszków, Paradyż, Sławno i Żarnów w powiecie opoczyńskim,

| gminy Czerniewice, Inowłódz, Lubochnia, Rzeczyca, Tomaszów Mazowiecki z miastem Tomaszów Mazowiecki, Żelechlinek w powiecie tomaszowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Czerniewice, Inowłódz, Lubochnia, Rzeczyca, Tomaszów Mazowiecki z miastem Tomaszów Mazowiecki, Żelechlinek w powiecie tomaszowskim,

| gmina Przedbórz w powiecie radomszczańskim, |
| --- |

gmina Przedbórz w powiecie radomszczańskim,

| w województwie pomorskim:





  gminy Ostaszewo, miasto Krynica Morska oraz część gminy Nowy Dwór Gdański położona na południowy - zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 7, następnie przez drogę nr 7 i S7 biegnącą do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie nowodworskim, |
| --- |

w województwie pomorskim:

gminy Ostaszewo, miasto Krynica Morska oraz część gminy Nowy Dwór Gdański położona na południowy - zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 7, następnie przez drogę nr 7 i S7 biegnącą do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie nowodworskim,

| gminy Lichnowy, Miłoradz, Malbork z miastem Malbork, część gminy Nowy Staw położna na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 w powiecie malborskim, |
| --- |

gminy Lichnowy, Miłoradz, Malbork z miastem Malbork, część gminy Nowy Staw położna na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 w powiecie malborskim,

| gminy Mikołajki Pomorskie, Stary Targ i Sztum w powiecie sztumskim, |
| --- |

gminy Mikołajki Pomorskie, Stary Targ i Sztum w powiecie sztumskim,

| powiat gdański, |
| --- |

powiat gdański,

| Miasto Gdańsk, |
| --- |

Miasto Gdańsk,

| powiat tczewski, |
| --- |

powiat tczewski,

| część powiatu kwidzyńskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu kwidzyńskiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| w województwie lubuskim:





  gmina Lubiszyn w powiecie gorzowskim, |
| --- |

w województwie lubuskim:

gmina Lubiszyn w powiecie gorzowskim,

| gmina Dobiegniew w powiecie strzelecko – drezdeneckim, |
| --- |

gmina Dobiegniew w powiecie strzelecko – drezdeneckim,

| w województwie dolnośląskim:





  gminy Międzybórz, Syców, Twardogóra, część gminy wiejskiej Oleśnica położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr S8, część gminy Dobroszyce położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową biegnącą od północnej do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie oleśnickim, |
| --- |

w województwie dolnośląskim:

gminy Międzybórz, Syców, Twardogóra, część gminy wiejskiej Oleśnica położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr S8, część gminy Dobroszyce położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową biegnącą od północnej do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie oleśnickim,

| gminy Jordanów Śląski, Kobierzyce, Mietków, Sobótka, część gminy Żórawina położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4, część gminy Kąty Wrocławskie położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie wrocławskim, |
| --- |

gminy Jordanów Śląski, Kobierzyce, Mietków, Sobótka, część gminy Żórawina położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4, część gminy Kąty Wrocławskie położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie wrocławskim,

| część gminy Domaniów położona na południowy zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie oławskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Domaniów położona na południowy zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie oławskim,

| gmina Wiązów w powiecie strzelińskim, |
| --- |

gmina Wiązów w powiecie strzelińskim,

| część powiatu średzkiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu średzkiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| gminy Pielgrzymka, miasto Złotoryja, część gminy wiejskiej Złotoryja położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy w miejscowości Nowa Wieś Złotoryjska do granicy miasta Złotoryja oraz na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od granicy miasta Złotoryja do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie złotoryjskim, |
| --- |

gminy Pielgrzymka, miasto Złotoryja, część gminy wiejskiej Złotoryja położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy w miejscowości Nowa Wieś Złotoryjska do granicy miasta Złotoryja oraz na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od granicy miasta Złotoryja do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie złotoryjskim,

| gminy Janowice Wielkie, Mysłakowice, Stara Kamienica, Szklarska Poręba w powiecie karkonoskim, |
| --- |

gminy Janowice Wielkie, Mysłakowice, Stara Kamienica, Szklarska Poręba w powiecie karkonoskim,

| część powiatu miejskiego Jelenia Góra położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 366, |
| --- |

część powiatu miejskiego Jelenia Góra położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 366,

| gminy Bolków, Mściwojów, Paszowice, miasto Jawor, część gminy Męcinka położona na południe od drogi nr 363 w powiecie jaworskim, |
| --- |

gminy Bolków, Mściwojów, Paszowice, miasto Jawor, część gminy Męcinka położona na południe od drogi nr 363 w powiecie jaworskim,

| gminy Dobromierz, Jaworzyna Śląska, Marcinowice, Strzegom, Żarów w powiecie świdnickim, |
| --- |

gminy Dobromierz, Jaworzyna Śląska, Marcinowice, Strzegom, Żarów w powiecie świdnickim,

| gminy Dzierżoniów, Pieszyce, miasto Bielawa, miasto Dzierżoniów w powiecie dzierżoniowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Dzierżoniów, Pieszyce, miasto Bielawa, miasto Dzierżoniów w powiecie dzierżoniowskim,

| gminy Głuszyca, Mieroszów w powiecie wałbrzyskim, |
| --- |

gminy Głuszyca, Mieroszów w powiecie wałbrzyskim,

| gmina Nowa Ruda i miasto Nowa Ruda w powiecie kłodzkim, |
| --- |

gmina Nowa Ruda i miasto Nowa Ruda w powiecie kłodzkim,

| gminy Kamienna Góra, Marciszów i miasto Kamienna Góra w powiecie kamiennogórskim, |
| --- |

gminy Kamienna Góra, Marciszów i miasto Kamienna Góra w powiecie kamiennogórskim,

| w województwie wielkopolskim:





  gminy Koźmin Wielkopolski, Rozdrażew, miasto Sulmierzyce, część gminy Krotoszyn położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi: nr 15 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36, nr 36 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 15 do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 444, nr 444 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie krotoszyńskim, |
| --- |

w województwie wielkopolskim:

gminy Koźmin Wielkopolski, Rozdrażew, miasto Sulmierzyce, część gminy Krotoszyn położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi: nr 15 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36, nr 36 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 15 do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 444, nr 444 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie krotoszyńskim,

| gminy Brodnica, część gminy Dolsk położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 434 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 437, a nastęnie na wschód od drogi nr 437 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogąnr 434 do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy Śrem położóna na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 310 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Śrem, następnie na wschód od drogi nr 432 w miejscowości Śrem oraz na wschód od drogi nr 434 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 432 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie śremskim, |
| --- |

gminy Brodnica, część gminy Dolsk położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 434 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 437, a nastęnie na wschód od drogi nr 437 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogąnr 434 do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy Śrem położóna na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 310 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Śrem, następnie na wschód od drogi nr 432 w miejscowości Śrem oraz na wschód od drogi nr 434 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 432 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie śremskim,

| gminy Borek Wielkopolski, Piaski, Pogorzela, w powiecie gostyńskim, |
| --- |

gminy Borek Wielkopolski, Piaski, Pogorzela, w powiecie gostyńskim,

| gmina Grodzisk Wielkopolski i część gminy Kamieniec położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 308 w powiecie grodziskim, |
| --- |

gmina Grodzisk Wielkopolski i część gminy Kamieniec położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 308 w powiecie grodziskim,

| gmina Czempiń w powiecie kościańskim, |
| --- |

gmina Czempiń w powiecie kościańskim,

| gminy Kleszczewo, Kostrzyn, Kórnik, Pobiedziska, Mosina, miasto Puszczykowo w powiecie poznańskim, |
| --- |

gminy Kleszczewo, Kostrzyn, Kórnik, Pobiedziska, Mosina, miasto Puszczykowo w powiecie poznańskim,

| gmina Kiszkowo i część gminy Kłecko położona na zachód od rzeki Mała Wełna w powiecie gnieźnieńskim, |
| --- |

gmina Kiszkowo i część gminy Kłecko położona na zachód od rzeki Mała Wełna w powiecie gnieźnieńskim,

| powiat czarnkowsko-trzcianecki, |
| --- |

powiat czarnkowsko-trzcianecki,

| część gminy Wronki położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Wartę biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do przecięcia z droga nr 182, a następnie na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi nr 182 oraz 184 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 182 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie szamotulskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Wronki położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Wartę biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do przecięcia z droga nr 182, a następnie na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi nr 182 oraz 184 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 182 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie szamotulskim,

| gmina Budzyń w powiecie chodzieskim, |
| --- |

gmina Budzyń w powiecie chodzieskim,

| gminy Mieścisko, Skoki i Wągrowiec z miastem Wągrowiec w powiecie wągrowieckim, |
| --- |

gminy Mieścisko, Skoki i Wągrowiec z miastem Wągrowiec w powiecie wągrowieckim,

| gmina Dobrzyca w powiecie pleszewskim, |
| --- |

gmina Dobrzyca w powiecie pleszewskim,

| gminy Odolanów, Przygodzice, Raszków, Sośnie, część gminy wiejskiej Ostrów Wielkopolski położona na zachód od miasta Ostrów Wielkopolski w powiecie ostrowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Odolanów, Przygodzice, Raszków, Sośnie, część gminy wiejskiej Ostrów Wielkopolski położona na zachód od miasta Ostrów Wielkopolski w powiecie ostrowskim,

| gmina Kobyla Góra w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, |
| --- |

gmina Kobyla Góra w powiecie ostrzeszowskim,

| gminy Baranów, Bralin, Perzów, Rychtal, Trzcinica, Łęka Opatowska w powiecie kępińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Baranów, Bralin, Perzów, Rychtal, Trzcinica, Łęka Opatowska w powiecie kępińskim,

| w województwie opolskim:





  gmina Byczyna, część gminy Kluczbork położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 45, a następnie od tego skrzyżowania na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 45 do skrzyżowania z ulicą Fabryczną w miejscowości Kluczbork i dalej na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Fabryczna -Dzierżonia – Strzelecka w miejscowości Kluczbork do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Wołczyn położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 w powiecie kluczborskim, |
| --- |

w województwie opolskim:

gmina Byczyna, część gminy Kluczbork położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 45, a następnie od tego skrzyżowania na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 45 do skrzyżowania z ulicą Fabryczną w miejscowości Kluczbork i dalej na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Fabryczna -Dzierżonia – Strzelecka w miejscowości Kluczbork do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Wołczyn położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 w powiecie kluczborskim,

| gminy Praszka, Gorzów Śląski, Radłów, Olesno, Zębowice, część gminy Rudniki położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 43 i na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 43 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 42 w powiecie oleskim, |
| --- |

gminy Praszka, Gorzów Śląski, Radłów, Olesno, Zębowice, część gminy Rudniki położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 43 i na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 43 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 42 w powiecie oleskim,

| gmina Grodków w powiecie brzeskim, |
| --- |

gmina Grodków w powiecie brzeskim,

| gminy Chrząstowice, Ozimek, Komprachcice, Niemodlin, Tułowice, część gminy Łubniany położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Świerkle – Masów, ulicę Leśną w miejscowości Masów oraz na południe od ulicy Kolanowskiej biegnącej do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Turawa położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Powstańców Śląskich -Kolanowską -Opolską – Kotorską w miejscowości Węgry i dalej na południe od drogi łączącej miejscowości Węgry- Kotórz Mały – Turawa – Rzędów – Kadłub Turawski – Zakrzów Turawski biegnącą do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie opolskim, |
| --- |

gminy Chrząstowice, Ozimek, Komprachcice, Niemodlin, Tułowice, część gminy Łubniany położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Świerkle – Masów, ulicę Leśną w miejscowości Masów oraz na południe od ulicy Kolanowskiej biegnącej do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Turawa położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Powstańców Śląskich -Kolanowską -Opolską – Kotorską w miejscowości Węgry i dalej na południe od drogi łączącej miejscowości Węgry- Kotórz Mały – Turawa – Rzędów – Kadłub Turawski – Zakrzów Turawski biegnącą do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie opolskim,

| powiat miejski Opole, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Opole,

| w województwie zachodniopomorskim:





  gminy Nowogródek Pomorski, Barlinek, Myślibórz, część gminy Dębno położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 126 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 23 w miejscowości Dębno, następnie na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 23 do skrzyżowania z ul. Jana Pawła II w miejscowości Cychry, następnie na północ od ul. Jana Pawła II do skrzyżowania z ul. Ogrodową i dalej na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez ul. Ogrodową, której przedłużenie biegnie do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie myśliborskim, |
| --- |

w województwie zachodniopomorskim:

gminy Nowogródek Pomorski, Barlinek, Myślibórz, część gminy Dębno położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 126 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 23 w miejscowości Dębno, następnie na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 23 do skrzyżowania z ul. Jana Pawła II w miejscowości Cychry, następnie na północ od ul. Jana Pawła II do skrzyżowania z ul. Ogrodową i dalej na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez ul. Ogrodową, której przedłużenie biegnie do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie myśliborskim,

| gmina Stare Czarnowo w powiecie gryfińskim, |
| --- |

gmina Stare Czarnowo w powiecie gryfińskim,

| gmina Bielice, Kozielice, Pyrzyce w powiecie pyrzyckim, |
| --- |

gmina Bielice, Kozielice, Pyrzyce w powiecie pyrzyckim,

| gminy Bierzwnik, Krzęcin, Pełczyce w powiecie choszczeńskim, |
| --- |

gminy Bierzwnik, Krzęcin, Pełczyce w powiecie choszczeńskim,

| część powiatu miejskiego Szczecin położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Odra Zachodnia biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do przecięcia z drogą nr 10, następnie na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 10 biegnącą od przecięcia z linią wyznaczoną przez rzekę Odra Zachodnia do wschodniej granicy gminy, |
| --- |

część powiatu miejskiego Szczecin położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Odra Zachodnia biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do przecięcia z drogą nr 10, następnie na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 10 biegnącą od przecięcia z linią wyznaczoną przez rzekę Odra Zachodnia do wschodniej granicy gminy,

| gminy Dobra (Szczecińska), Police w powiecie polickim, |
| --- |

gminy Dobra (Szczecińska), Police w powiecie polickim,

| w województwie małopolskim:





  powiat brzeski, |
| --- |

w województwie małopolskim:

powiat brzeski,

| powiat gorlicki, |
| --- |

powiat gorlicki,

| powiat proszowicki, |
| --- |

powiat proszowicki,

| część powiatu nowosądeckiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu nowosądeckiego niewymieniona w części II załącznika I,

| gminy Czorsztyn, Krościenko nad Dunajcem, Ochotnica Dolna w powiecie nowotarskim, |
| --- |

gminy Czorsztyn, Krościenko nad Dunajcem, Ochotnica Dolna w powiecie nowotarskim,

| powiat miejski Nowy Sącz, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Nowy Sącz,

| powiat tarnowski, |
| --- |

powiat tarnowski,

| powiat miejski Tarnów, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Tarnów,

| powiat dąbrowski, |
| --- |

powiat dąbrowski,

| gminy Klucze, Bolesław, Bukowno w powiecie olkuskim, |
| --- |

gminy Klucze, Bolesław, Bukowno w powiecie olkuskim,

| w województwie śląskim:





  gmina Sławków w powiecie będzińskim, |
| --- |

w województwie śląskim:

gmina Sławków w powiecie będzińskim,

| powiat miejski Jaworzno, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Jaworzno,

| powiat miejski Mysłowice, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Mysłowice,

| powiat miejski Katowice, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Katowice,

| powiat miejski Siemianowice Śląskie, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Siemianowice Śląskie,

| powiat miejski Chorzów, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Chorzów,

| powiat miejski Piekary Śląskie, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Piekary Śląskie,

| powiat miejski Bytom, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Bytom,

| gminy Kalety, Ożarowice, Świerklaniec, Miasteczko Śląskie, Radzionków w powiecie tarnogórskim, |
| --- |

gminy Kalety, Ożarowice, Świerklaniec, Miasteczko Śląskie, Radzionków w powiecie tarnogórskim,

| gmina Woźniki w powiecie lublinieckim, |
| --- |

gmina Woźniki w powiecie lublinieckim,

| gminy Myszków i Koziegłowy w powiecie myszkowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Myszków i Koziegłowy w powiecie myszkowskim,

| gminy Ogrodzieniec, Zawiercie, Włodowice w powiecie zawierciańskim. |
| --- |

gminy Ogrodzieniec, Zawiercie, Włodowice w powiecie zawierciańskim.

7.   Slovakia

The following restricted zones I in Slovakia:

| — | in the district of Nové Zámky, Sikenička, Pavlová, Bíňa, Kamenín, Kamenný Most, Malá nad Hronom, Belá, Ľubá, Šarkan, Gbelce, Bruty, Mužla, Obid, Štúrovo, Nána, Kamenica nad Hronom, Chľaba, Leľa, Bajtava, Salka, Malé Kosihy, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Nové Zámky, Sikenička, Pavlová, Bíňa, Kamenín, Kamenný Most, Malá nad Hronom, Belá, Ľubá, Šarkan, Gbelce, Bruty, Mužla, Obid, Štúrovo, Nána, Kamenica nad Hronom, Chľaba, Leľa, Bajtava, Salka, Malé Kosihy,

| — | in the district of Veľký Krtíš, the municipalities of Ipeľské Predmostie, Veľká nad Ipľom, Hrušov, Kleňany, Sečianky, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Veľký Krtíš, the municipalities of Ipeľské Predmostie, Veľká nad Ipľom, Hrušov, Kleňany, Sečianky,

| — | in the district of Levice, the municipalities of Keť, Čata, Pohronský Ruskov, Hronovce, Želiezovce, Zalaba, Malé Ludince, Šalov, Sikenica, Pastovce, Bielovce, Ipeľský Sokolec, Lontov, Kubáňovo, Sazdice, Demandice, Dolné Semerovce, Vyškovce nad Ipľom, Preseľany nad Ipľom, Hrkovce, Tupá, Horné Semerovce, Hokovce, Slatina, Horné Turovce, Veľké Turovce, Šahy, Tešmak, Plášťovce, Ipeľské Uľany, Bátovce, Pečenice, Jabloňovce, Bohunice, Pukanec, Uhliská, Kalná nad Hronom, Nový Tekov, Malé Kozmálovce, Veľké Kozmálovce, Tlmače, Rybník, Hronské Kosihy, Čajkov, Nová Dedina, Devičany, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Levice, the municipalities of Keť, Čata, Pohronský Ruskov, Hronovce, Želiezovce, Zalaba, Malé Ludince, Šalov, Sikenica, Pastovce, Bielovce, Ipeľský Sokolec, Lontov, Kubáňovo, Sazdice, Demandice, Dolné Semerovce, Vyškovce nad Ipľom, Preseľany nad Ipľom, Hrkovce, Tupá, Horné Semerovce, Hokovce, Slatina, Horné Turovce, Veľké Turovce, Šahy, Tešmak, Plášťovce, Ipeľské Uľany, Bátovce, Pečenice, Jabloňovce, Bohunice, Pukanec, Uhliská, Kalná nad Hronom, Nový Tekov, Malé Kozmálovce, Veľké Kozmálovce, Tlmače, Rybník, Hronské Kosihy, Čajkov, Nová Dedina, Devičany,

| — | in the district of Krupina, the municipalities of Dudince, Terany, Hontianske Moravce, Sudince, Súdovce, Lišov, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Krupina, the municipalities of Dudince, Terany, Hontianske Moravce, Sudince, Súdovce, Lišov,

| — | the whole district of Ružomberok, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Ružomberok,

| — | in the region of Turčianske Teplice, municipalties of Turček, Horná Štubňa, Čremošné, Háj, Rakša, Mošovce, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the region of Turčianske Teplice, municipalties of Turček, Horná Štubňa, Čremošné, Háj, Rakša, Mošovce,

| — | in the district of Martin, municipalties of Blatnica, Folkušová, Necpaly, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Martin, municipalties of Blatnica, Folkušová, Necpaly,

| — | in the district of Dolný Kubín, the municipalities of Kraľovany, Žaškov, Jasenová, Vyšný Kubín, Oravská Poruba, Leštiny, Osádka, Malatiná, Chlebnice, Krivá, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Dolný Kubín, the municipalities of Kraľovany, Žaškov, Jasenová, Vyšný Kubín, Oravská Poruba, Leštiny, Osádka, Malatiná, Chlebnice, Krivá,

| — | in the district of Tvrdošín, the municipalities of Oravský Biely Potok, Habovka, Zuberec, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Tvrdošín, the municipalities of Oravský Biely Potok, Habovka, Zuberec,

| — | in the district of Prievidza, the municipalities of Handlová, Cígeľ, Podhradie, Lehota pod Vtáčnikom, Kamenec pod Vtáčnikom, Bystričany, Čereňany, Oslany, Horná Ves, Radobica, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Prievidza, the municipalities of Handlová, Cígeľ, Podhradie, Lehota pod Vtáčnikom, Kamenec pod Vtáčnikom, Bystričany, Čereňany, Oslany, Horná Ves, Radobica,

| — | in the district of Partizánske, the municipalities of Veľké Uherce, Pažiť, Kolačno, Veľký Klíž, Ješkova Ves, Klátová Nová Ves, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Partizánske, the municipalities of Veľké Uherce, Pažiť, Kolačno, Veľký Klíž, Ješkova Ves, Klátová Nová Ves,

| — | in the district of Topoľčany, the municipalities of Krnča, Prázdnovce, Solčany, Nitrianska Streda, Čeľadince, Kovarce, Súlovce, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Topoľčany, the municipalities of Krnča, Prázdnovce, Solčany, Nitrianska Streda, Čeľadince, Kovarce, Súlovce,

| — | in the district of Zlaté Moravce, the municipalities of Zlatno, Mankovce, Velčice, Kostoľany pod Tríbečom, Ladice, Sľažany, Neverice, Beladice, Choča, Vieska nad Žitavou, Slepčany, Červený Hrádok, Nevidzany, Malé Vozokany, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Zlaté Moravce, the municipalities of Zlatno, Mankovce, Velčice, Kostoľany pod Tríbečom, Ladice, Sľažany, Neverice, Beladice, Choča, Vieska nad Žitavou, Slepčany, Červený Hrádok, Nevidzany, Malé Vozokany,

| — | the whole district of Žiar nad Hronom, except municipalities included in zone II. |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Žiar nad Hronom, except municipalities included in zone II.

8.   Italy

The following restricted zones I in Italy:

| Piedmont Region:





  in the province of Alessandria, the municipalities Alessandria, of Casalnoceto, Oviglio, Tortona, Viguzzolo, Frugarolo, Bergamasco, Castellar Guidobono, Berzano Di Tortona, Cerreto Grue, Carbonara Scrivia, Casasco, Carentino, Frascaro, Paderna, Montegioco, Spineto Scrivia, Villaromagnano, Momperone, Merana, Monleale, Borgoratto Alessandrino, Casal Cermelli, Montemarzino, Castellazzo Bormida, Bosco Marengo, Castelspina, Volpeglino, Gamalero, Volpedo, Pozzol Groppo, Sarezzano, |
| --- |

Piedmont Region:

in the province of Alessandria, the municipalities Alessandria, of Casalnoceto, Oviglio, Tortona, Viguzzolo, Frugarolo, Bergamasco, Castellar Guidobono, Berzano Di Tortona, Cerreto Grue, Carbonara Scrivia, Casasco, Carentino, Frascaro, Paderna, Montegioco, Spineto Scrivia, Villaromagnano, Momperone, Merana, Monleale, Borgoratto Alessandrino, Casal Cermelli, Montemarzino, Castellazzo Bormida, Bosco Marengo, Castelspina, Volpeglino, Gamalero, Volpedo, Pozzol Groppo, Sarezzano,

| in the province of Asti, the municipalities of Olmo Gentile, Nizza Monferrato, Incisa Scapaccino, Castel Boglione, Mombaruzzo, Maranzana, Rocchetta Palafea, Castelletto Molina, Castelnuovo Belbo, Quaranti, Fontanile, Calamandrana, Bruno, Bubbio, Cassinasco, Serole, Loazzolo, Cessole, Vesime, San Giorgio Scarampi, Canelli, San Marzano Oliveto, |
| --- |

in the province of Asti, the municipalities of Olmo Gentile, Nizza Monferrato, Incisa Scapaccino, Castel Boglione, Mombaruzzo, Maranzana, Rocchetta Palafea, Castelletto Molina, Castelnuovo Belbo, Quaranti, Fontanile, Calamandrana, Bruno, Bubbio, Cassinasco, Serole, Loazzolo, Cessole, Vesime, San Giorgio Scarampi, Canelli, San Marzano Oliveto,

| in the province of Cuneo, the municipalities of Bergolo, Pezzolo Valle Uzzone, Cortemilia, Levice, Castelletto Uzzone, Perletto, Castino, Cossano Belbo, Rocchetta Belbo, Santo Stefano Belbo, |
| --- |

in the province of Cuneo, the municipalities of Bergolo, Pezzolo Valle Uzzone, Cortemilia, Levice, Castelletto Uzzone, Perletto, Castino, Cossano Belbo, Rocchetta Belbo, Santo Stefano Belbo,

| Liguria Region:





  in the province of Genova, the Municipalities of Rovegno, Rapallo, Portofino, Cicagna, Avegno, Montebruno, Santa Margherita Ligure, Favale Di Malvaro, Recco, Camogli, Moconesi, Tribogna, Uscio, Fontanigorda, Neirone, Lorsica, |
| --- |

Liguria Region:

in the province of Genova, the Municipalities of Rovegno, Rapallo, Portofino, Cicagna, Avegno, Montebruno, Santa Margherita Ligure, Favale Di Malvaro, Recco, Camogli, Moconesi, Tribogna, Uscio, Fontanigorda, Neirone, Lorsica,

| in the province of Savona, the municipalities of Cairo Montenotte, Quiliano, Dego (ovest SP29), Altare, Piana Crixia, Albissola Marina, Savona, |
| --- |

in the province of Savona, the municipalities of Cairo Montenotte, Quiliano, Dego (ovest SP29), Altare, Piana Crixia, Albissola Marina, Savona,

| Emilia-Romagna Region:





  in the province of Piacenza, the municipalities of Cerignale, Ottone (est fiume Trebbia), |
| --- |

Emilia-Romagna Region:

in the province of Piacenza, the municipalities of Cerignale, Ottone (est fiume Trebbia),

| Lombardia Region:





  in the province of Pavia, the municipalities of Rocca Susella, Montesegale, Menconico, Val Di Nizza, Bagnaria, Santa Margherita Di Staffora, Ponte Nizza, Brallo Di Pregola, Varzi, Godiasco, Cecima, |
| --- |

Lombardia Region:

in the province of Pavia, the municipalities of Rocca Susella, Montesegale, Menconico, Val Di Nizza, Bagnaria, Santa Margherita Di Staffora, Ponte Nizza, Brallo Di Pregola, Varzi, Godiasco, Cecima,

| Lazio Region:





  in the province of Rome,





  North: the municipalities of Riano, Castelnuovo di Porto, Capena, Fiano Romano, Morlupo, Sacrofano, Magliano Romano, Formello, Campagnano di Roma, Anguillara, |
| --- |

Lazio Region:

in the province of Rome,

North: the municipalities of Riano, Castelnuovo di Porto, Capena, Fiano Romano, Morlupo, Sacrofano, Magliano Romano, Formello, Campagnano di Roma, Anguillara,

| West: the municipality of Fiumicino, |
| --- |

West: the municipality of Fiumicino,

| South: the municipality of Rome between the boundaries of the municipality of Fiumicino (West), the limits of Zone 3 (North), the Tiber river up to the intersection with the Grande Raccordo Anulare GRA Highway, the Grande Raccordo Anulare GRA Highway up to the intersection with A24 Highway, A24 Highway up to the intersection with Viale del Tecnopolo, viale del Tecnopolo up to the intersection with the boundaries of the municipality of Guidonia Montecelio, |
| --- |

South: the municipality of Rome between the boundaries of the municipality of Fiumicino (West), the limits of Zone 3 (North), the Tiber river up to the intersection with the Grande Raccordo Anulare GRA Highway, the Grande Raccordo Anulare GRA Highway up to the intersection with A24 Highway, A24 Highway up to the intersection with Viale del Tecnopolo, viale del Tecnopolo up to the intersection with the boundaries of the municipality of Guidonia Montecelio,

| East: the municipalities of Guidonia Montecelio, Montelibretti, Palombara Sabina, Monterotondo, Mentana, Sant’Angelo Romano, Fonte Nuova. |
| --- |

East: the municipalities of Guidonia Montecelio, Montelibretti, Palombara Sabina, Monterotondo, Mentana, Sant’Angelo Romano, Fonte Nuova.

| Sardinia Region





  in South Sardinia Province the Municipalities of Ballao, Barumini, Escalaplano, Escolca Isola Amministrativa, Genuri, Gergei, Gesico, Guamaggiore, Las Plassas, Mandas, Orroli, Pauli Arbarei, Selegas, Setzu, Siddi, Siurgus Donigala, Suelli, Tuili, Turri, Ussaramanna, Villanovafranca, Villaputzu, |
| --- |

Sardinia Region

in South Sardinia Province the Municipalities of Ballao, Barumini, Escalaplano, Escolca Isola Amministrativa, Genuri, Gergei, Gesico, Guamaggiore, Las Plassas, Mandas, Orroli, Pauli Arbarei, Selegas, Setzu, Siddi, Siurgus Donigala, Suelli, Tuili, Turri, Ussaramanna, Villanovafranca, Villaputzu,

| in Nuoro Province the Municipalities of Arzana Isola Amministrativa, Birori, Borore, Bortigali a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Dualchi, Gairo Isola Amministrativa, Galtelli, Irgoli, Jerzu Isola Amministrativa, Lanusei Isola Amministrativa, Loceri Isola Amministrativa, Loculi, Macomer at ovest della Strada Statale 131, Noragugume, Onifai, Orosei, Ortueri, Osini Isola Amministrativa, Perdasdefogu, Posada, Sindia Isola Amministrativa, Siniscola, Tertenia Isola Amministrativa, |
| --- |

in Nuoro Province the Municipalities of Arzana Isola Amministrativa, Birori, Borore, Bortigali a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Dualchi, Gairo Isola Amministrativa, Galtelli, Irgoli, Jerzu Isola Amministrativa, Lanusei Isola Amministrativa, Loceri Isola Amministrativa, Loculi, Macomer at ovest della Strada Statale 131, Noragugume, Onifai, Orosei, Ortueri, Osini Isola Amministrativa, Perdasdefogu, Posada, Sindia Isola Amministrativa, Siniscola, Tertenia Isola Amministrativa,

| in Oristano Province the Municipalities of Aidomaggiore, Albagiara, Ardauli, Assolo, Asuni, Baradili, Baressa, Bidonì, Boroneddu, Busachi, Ghilarza, Gonnosnò, Mogorella, Neoneli, Nureci, Ruinas, Samugheo, Sedilo, Senis, Sini, Soddi, Sorradile Isola Amministrativa, Tadasuni, Ulà Tirso, Usellus, Villa Sant'antonio, |
| --- |

in Oristano Province the Municipalities of Aidomaggiore, Albagiara, Ardauli, Assolo, Asuni, Baradili, Baressa, Bidonì, Boroneddu, Busachi, Ghilarza, Gonnosnò, Mogorella, Neoneli, Nureci, Ruinas, Samugheo, Sedilo, Senis, Sini, Soddi, Sorradile Isola Amministrativa, Tadasuni, Ulà Tirso, Usellus, Villa Sant'antonio,

| in Sassari Province the Municipalities of Ardara, Berchidda, Bonnanaro, Bonorva a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Borutta, Cheremule, Cossoine, Giave, Loiri Porto San Paolo, Monti, Mores a nord della Strada Statale 128bis – Strada Provinciale 63, Olbia a sud della Strada Statale 127, Oschiri a nord della E 840, Ozieri a nord della Strada Provinciale 63 – Strada Provinciale 1 – Strada Statale 199, Semestene, Telti, Torralba, Tula. |
| --- |

in Sassari Province the Municipalities of Ardara, Berchidda, Bonnanaro, Bonorva a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Borutta, Cheremule, Cossoine, Giave, Loiri Porto San Paolo, Monti, Mores a nord della Strada Statale 128bis – Strada Provinciale 63, Olbia a sud della Strada Statale 127, Oschiri a nord della E 840, Ozieri a nord della Strada Provinciale 63 – Strada Provinciale 1 – Strada Statale 199, Semestene, Telti, Torralba, Tula.

9.   Czech Republic

The following restricted zones I in the Czech Republic:

| Region of Liberec:





  in the district of Liberec, the municipalities of Hrádek nad Nisou, Oldřichov v Hájích, Grabštejn, Václavice u Hrádku nad Nisou, Horní Vítkov, Dolní Vítkov, Bílý Kostel nad Nisou, Dolní Chrastava, Horní Chrastava, Chrastava I, Nová Ves u Chrastavy, Mlýnice, Albrechtice u Frýdlantu, Kristiánov, Heřmanice u Frýdlantu, Dětřichov u Frýdlantu, Mníšek u Liberce, Oldřichov na Hranicích, Machnín, Svárov u Liberce, Desná I, Krásná Studánka, Stráž nad Nisou, Fojtka, Radčice u Krásné Studánky, Kateřinky u Liberce, Staré Pavlovice, Nové Pavlovice, Růžodol I, Františkov u Liberce, Liberec, Ruprechtice, Rudolfov, Horní Růžodol, Rochlice u Liberce, Starý Harcov, Vratislavice nad Nisou, Kunratice u Liberce, Proseč nad Nisou, Lukášov, Rýnovice, Jablonec nad Nisou, Jablonecké Paseky, Jindřichov nad Nisou, Mšeno nad Nisou, Lučany nad Nisou, Smržovka, Tanvald, Jiřetín pod Bukovou, Dolní Maxov, Antonínov, Horní Maxov, Karlov u Josefova Dolu, Loučná nad Nisou, Hraničná nad Nisou, Janov nad Nisou, Bedřichov u Jablonce nad Nisou, Josefův Důl u Jablonce nad Nisou, Albrechtice v Jizerských horách, Desná III, Polubný, Harrachov, Jizerka, Hejnice, Bílý Potok pod Smrkem |
| --- |

Region of Liberec:

in the district of Liberec, the municipalities of Hrádek nad Nisou, Oldřichov v Hájích, Grabštejn, Václavice u Hrádku nad Nisou, Horní Vítkov, Dolní Vítkov, Bílý Kostel nad Nisou, Dolní Chrastava, Horní Chrastava, Chrastava I, Nová Ves u Chrastavy, Mlýnice, Albrechtice u Frýdlantu, Kristiánov, Heřmanice u Frýdlantu, Dětřichov u Frýdlantu, Mníšek u Liberce, Oldřichov na Hranicích, Machnín, Svárov u Liberce, Desná I, Krásná Studánka, Stráž nad Nisou, Fojtka, Radčice u Krásné Studánky, Kateřinky u Liberce, Staré Pavlovice, Nové Pavlovice, Růžodol I, Františkov u Liberce, Liberec, Ruprechtice, Rudolfov, Horní Růžodol, Rochlice u Liberce, Starý Harcov, Vratislavice nad Nisou, Kunratice u Liberce, Proseč nad Nisou, Lukášov, Rýnovice, Jablonec nad Nisou, Jablonecké Paseky, Jindřichov nad Nisou, Mšeno nad Nisou, Lučany nad Nisou, Smržovka, Tanvald, Jiřetín pod Bukovou, Dolní Maxov, Antonínov, Horní Maxov, Karlov u Josefova Dolu, Loučná nad Nisou, Hraničná nad Nisou, Janov nad Nisou, Bedřichov u Jablonce nad Nisou, Josefův Důl u Jablonce nad Nisou, Albrechtice v Jizerských horách, Desná III, Polubný, Harrachov, Jizerka, Hejnice, Bílý Potok pod Smrkem

10.   Greece

The following restricted zones I in Greece:

| — | in the regional unit of Drama:






  — | the community departments of Sidironero and Skaloti and the municipal departments of Livadero and Ksiropotamo (in Drama municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Drama:

—

the community departments of Sidironero and Skaloti and the municipal departments of Livadero and Ksiropotamo (in Drama municipality),

| — | the municipal department of Paranesti (in Paranesti municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal department of Paranesti (in Paranesti municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Prosotsani, Kokkinogeia, Mikropoli, Panorama, Pyrgoi (in Prosotsani municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Prosotsani, Kokkinogeia, Mikropoli, Panorama, Pyrgoi (in Prosotsani municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Kato Nevrokopi, Chrysokefalo, Achladea, Vathytopos, Volakas, Granitis, Dasotos, Eksohi, Katafyto, Lefkogeia, Mikrokleisoura, Mikromilea, Ochyro, Pagoneri, Perithorio, Kato Vrontou and Potamoi (in Kato Nevrokopi municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Kato Nevrokopi, Chrysokefalo, Achladea, Vathytopos, Volakas, Granitis, Dasotos, Eksohi, Katafyto, Lefkogeia, Mikrokleisoura, Mikromilea, Ochyro, Pagoneri, Perithorio, Kato Vrontou and Potamoi (in Kato Nevrokopi municipality),

| — | in the regional unit of Xanthi:






  — | the municipal departments of Kimmerion, Stavroupoli, Gerakas, Dafnonas, Komnina, Kariofyto and Neochori (in Xanthi municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Xanthi:

—

the municipal departments of Kimmerion, Stavroupoli, Gerakas, Dafnonas, Komnina, Kariofyto and Neochori (in Xanthi municipality),

| — | the community departments of Satres, Thermes, Kotyli, and the municipal departments of Myki, Echinos and Oraio and (in Myki municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the community departments of Satres, Thermes, Kotyli, and the municipal departments of Myki, Echinos and Oraio and (in Myki municipality),

| — | the community department of Selero and the municipal department of Sounio (in Avdira municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the community department of Selero and the municipal department of Sounio (in Avdira municipality),

| — | in the regional unit of Rodopi:






  — | the municipal departments of Komotini, Anthochorio, Gratini, Thrylorio, Kalhas, Karydia, Kikidio, Kosmio, Pandrosos, Aigeiros, Kallisti, Meleti, Neo Sidirochori and Mega Doukato (in Komotini municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Rodopi:

—

the municipal departments of Komotini, Anthochorio, Gratini, Thrylorio, Kalhas, Karydia, Kikidio, Kosmio, Pandrosos, Aigeiros, Kallisti, Meleti, Neo Sidirochori and Mega Doukato (in Komotini municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Ipio, Arriana, Darmeni, Archontika, Fillyra, Ano Drosini, Aratos and the Community Departments Kehros and Organi (in Arriana municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Ipio, Arriana, Darmeni, Archontika, Fillyra, Ano Drosini, Aratos and the Community Departments Kehros and Organi (in Arriana municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Iasmos, Sostis, Asomatoi, Polyanthos and Amvrosia and the community department of Amaxades (in Iasmos municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Iasmos, Sostis, Asomatoi, Polyanthos and Amvrosia and the community department of Amaxades (in Iasmos municipality),

| — | the municipal department of Amaranta (in Maroneia Sapon municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal department of Amaranta (in Maroneia Sapon municipality),

| — | in the regional unit of Evros:






  — | the municipal departments of Kyriaki, Mandra, Mavrokklisi, Mikro Dereio, Protokklisi, Roussa, Goniko, Geriko, Sidirochori, Megalo Derio, Sidiro, Giannouli, Agriani and Petrolofos (in Soufli municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Evros:

—

the municipal departments of Kyriaki, Mandra, Mavrokklisi, Mikro Dereio, Protokklisi, Roussa, Goniko, Geriko, Sidirochori, Megalo Derio, Sidiro, Giannouli, Agriani and Petrolofos (in Soufli municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Dikaia, Arzos, Elaia, Therapio, Komara, Marasia, Ormenio, Pentalofos, Petrota, Plati, Ptelea, Kyprinos, Zoni, Fulakio, Spilaio, Nea Vyssa, Kavili, Kastanies, Rizia, Sterna, Ampelakia, Valtos, Megali Doxipara, Neochori and Chandras (in Orestiada municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Dikaia, Arzos, Elaia, Therapio, Komara, Marasia, Ormenio, Pentalofos, Petrota, Plati, Ptelea, Kyprinos, Zoni, Fulakio, Spilaio, Nea Vyssa, Kavili, Kastanies, Rizia, Sterna, Ampelakia, Valtos, Megali Doxipara, Neochori and Chandras (in Orestiada municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Asvestades, Ellinochori, Karoti, Koufovouno, Kiani, Mani, Sitochori, Alepochori, Asproneri, Metaxades, Vrysika, Doksa, Elafoxori, Ladi, Paliouri and Poimeniko (in Didymoteixo municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Asvestades, Ellinochori, Karoti, Koufovouno, Kiani, Mani, Sitochori, Alepochori, Asproneri, Metaxades, Vrysika, Doksa, Elafoxori, Ladi, Paliouri and Poimeniko (in Didymoteixo municipality),

| — | in the regional unit of Serres:






  — | the municipal departments of Kerkini, Livadia, Makrynitsa, Neochori, Platanakia, Akritochori, Vyroneia, Gonimo, Mandraki, Megalochori, Rodopoli, Ano Poroia, Katw Poroia, Sidirokastro, Vamvakophyto, Kamaroto, Strymonochori, Charopo, Kastanousi and Chortero and the community departments of Agkistro, Achladochori and Kapnophyto (in Sintiki municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Serres:

—

the municipal departments of Kerkini, Livadia, Makrynitsa, Neochori, Platanakia, Akritochori, Vyroneia, Gonimo, Mandraki, Megalochori, Rodopoli, Ano Poroia, Katw Poroia, Sidirokastro, Vamvakophyto, Kamaroto, Strymonochori, Charopo, Kastanousi and Chortero and the community departments of Agkistro, Achladochori and Kapnophyto (in Sintiki municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Serres, Leukonas, Mitrousi, Skoutari, Elaionas and Oinoussa and the community departments of Orini and Ano Vrontou (in Serres municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Serres, Leukonas, Mitrousi, Skoutari, Elaionas and Oinoussa and the community departments of Orini and Ano Vrontou (in Serres municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Dasochoriou, Irakleia, Skotoussa, Strimoniko, Valtero, Karperi, Koimisi, Lithotopos, Limnochori, Podismeno and Chrysochorafa (in Irakleia municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Dasochoriou, Irakleia, Skotoussa, Strimoniko, Valtero, Karperi, Koimisi, Lithotopos, Limnochori, Podismeno and Chrysochorafa (in Irakleia municipality),

| — | the municipal departments of Emmanouil Pappas and Strimonas (in Emmanouil Pappas municipality), the municipal department of Visaltia (in Visaltia municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

the municipal departments of Emmanouil Pappas and Strimonas (in Emmanouil Pappas municipality), the municipal department of Visaltia (in Visaltia municipality),

| — | in the regional unit of Kilkis:






  — | the municipal departments of Kroussa, Mouries and Doirani (in Kilkis municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Kilkis:

—

the municipal departments of Kroussa, Mouries and Doirani (in Kilkis municipality),

| — | in the regional unit of Thessaloniki:






  — | the municipal department of Lahanas (in Lagadas municipality). |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Thessaloniki:

—

the municipal department of Lahanas (in Lagadas municipality).

PART II

1.   Bulgaria

The following restricted zones II in Bulgaria:

| — | the whole region of Haskovo, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Haskovo,

| — | the whole region of Yambol, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Yambol,

| — | the whole region of Stara Zagora, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Stara Zagora,

| — | the whole region of Pernik, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Pernik,

| — | the whole region of Kyustendil, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Kyustendil,

| — | the whole region of Plovdiv, excluding the areas in Part III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Plovdiv, excluding the areas in Part III,

| — | the whole region of Pazardzhik, excluding the areas in Part III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Pazardzhik, excluding the areas in Part III,

| — | the whole region of Smolyan, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Smolyan,

| — | the whole region of Dobrich, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Dobrich,

| — | the whole region of Sofia city, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Sofia city,

| — | the whole region of Sofia Province, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Sofia Province,

| — | the whole region of Blagoevgrad excluding the areas in Part III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Blagoevgrad excluding the areas in Part III,

| — | the whole region of Razgrad, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Razgrad,

| — | the whole region of Kardzhali, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Kardzhali,

| — | the whole region of Burgas, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Burgas,

| — | the whole region of Varna excluding the areas in Part III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Varna excluding the areas in Part III,

| — | the whole region of Silistra, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Silistra,

| — | the whole region of Ruse, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Ruse,

| — | the whole region of Veliko Tarnovo, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Veliko Tarnovo,

| — | the whole region of Pleven, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Pleven,

| — | the whole region of Targovishte, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Targovishte,

| — | the whole region of Shumen, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Shumen,

| — | the whole region of Sliven, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Sliven,

| — | the whole region of Vidin, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Vidin,

| — | the whole region of Gabrovo, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Gabrovo,

| — | the whole region of Lovech, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Lovech,

| — | the whole region of Montana, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Montana,

| — | the whole region of Vratza. |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole region of Vratza.

2.   Germany

The following restricted zones II in Germany:

| Bundesland Brandenburg:





  Landkreis Oder-Spree:





  Gemeinde Grunow-Dammendorf, |
| --- |

Bundesland Brandenburg:

Landkreis Oder-Spree:

Gemeinde Grunow-Dammendorf,

| Gemeinde Mixdorf |
| --- |

Gemeinde Mixdorf

| Gemeinde Schlaubetal, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schlaubetal,

| Gemeinde Neuzelle, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neuzelle,

| Gemeinde Neißemünde, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neißemünde,

| Gemeinde Lawitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lawitz,

| Gemeinde Eisenhüttenstadt, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Eisenhüttenstadt,

| Gemeinde Vogelsang, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Vogelsang,

| Gemeinde Ziltendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ziltendorf,

| Gemeinde Wiesenau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wiesenau,

| Gemeinde Friedland, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Friedland,

| Gemeinde Siehdichum, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Siehdichum,

| Gemeinde Müllrose, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Müllrose,

| Gemeinde Briesen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Briesen,

| Gemeinde Jacobsdorf |
| --- |

Gemeinde Jacobsdorf

| Gemeinde Groß Lindow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Groß Lindow,

| Gemeinde Brieskow-Finkenheerd, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Brieskow-Finkenheerd,

| Gemeinde Ragow-Merz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ragow-Merz,

| Gemeinde Beeskow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Beeskow,

| Gemeinde Rietz-Neuendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Rietz-Neuendorf,

| Gemeinde Tauche mit den Gemarkungen Stremmen, Ranzig, Trebatsch, Sabrodt, Sawall, Mitweide, Lindenberg, Falkenberg (T), Görsdorf (B), Wulfersdorf, Giesensdorf, Briescht, Kossenblatt und Tauche, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Tauche mit den Gemarkungen Stremmen, Ranzig, Trebatsch, Sabrodt, Sawall, Mitweide, Lindenberg, Falkenberg (T), Görsdorf (B), Wulfersdorf, Giesensdorf, Briescht, Kossenblatt und Tauche,

| Gemeinde Langewahl, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Langewahl,

| Gemeinde Berkenbrück, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Berkenbrück,

| Gemeinde Steinhöfel mit den Gemarkungen Arensdorf und Demitz und den Gemarkungen Steinhöfel, Hasenfelde und Heinersdorf östlich der L 36 und der Gemarkung Neuendorf im Sande südlich der L36, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Steinhöfel mit den Gemarkungen Arensdorf und Demitz und den Gemarkungen Steinhöfel, Hasenfelde und Heinersdorf östlich der L 36 und der Gemarkung Neuendorf im Sande südlich der L36,

| Gemeinde Fürstenwalde östlich der B 168 und südlich der L36, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Fürstenwalde östlich der B 168 und südlich der L36,

| Gemeinde Diensdorf-Radlow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Diensdorf-Radlow,

| Gemeinde Wendisch Rietz östlich des Scharmützelsees und nördlich der B 246, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wendisch Rietz östlich des Scharmützelsees und nördlich der B 246,

| Gemeinde Bad Saarow mit der Gemarkung Neu Golm und der Gemarkung Bad Saarow-Pieskow östlich des Scharmützelsees und ab nördlicher Spitze östlich der L35, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bad Saarow mit der Gemarkung Neu Golm und der Gemarkung Bad Saarow-Pieskow östlich des Scharmützelsees und ab nördlicher Spitze östlich der L35,

| Landkreis Dahme-Spreewald:





  Gemeinde Jamlitz, |
| --- |

Landkreis Dahme-Spreewald:

Gemeinde Jamlitz,

| Gemeinde Lieberose, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lieberose,

| Gemeinde Schwielochsee mit den Gemarkungen Goyatz, Jessern, Lamsfeld, Ressen, Speichrow und Zaue, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schwielochsee mit den Gemarkungen Goyatz, Jessern, Lamsfeld, Ressen, Speichrow und Zaue,

| Landkreis Spree-Neiße:





  Gemeinde Schenkendöbern, |
| --- |

Landkreis Spree-Neiße:

Gemeinde Schenkendöbern,

| Gemeinde Guben, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Guben,

| Gemeinde Jänschwalde, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Jänschwalde,

| Gemeinde Tauer, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Tauer,

| Gemeinde Peitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Peitz,

| Gemeinde Kolkwitz mit den Gemarkungen Klein Gaglow, Hähnchen, Kolkwitz, Glinzig und Krieschow südlich der BAB 15, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kolkwitz mit den Gemarkungen Klein Gaglow, Hähnchen, Kolkwitz, Glinzig und Krieschow südlich der BAB 15,

| Gemeinde Turnow-Preilack mit der Gemarkung Preilack, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Turnow-Preilack mit der Gemarkung Preilack,

| Gemeinde Teichland mit der Gemarkung Bärenbrück, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Teichland mit der Gemarkung Bärenbrück,

| Gemeinde Heinersbrück, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Heinersbrück,

| Gemeinde Forst, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Forst,

| Gemeinde Groß Schacksdorf-Simmersdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Groß Schacksdorf-Simmersdorf,

| Gemeinde Neiße-Malxetal, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neiße-Malxetal,

| Gemeinde Jämlitz-Klein Düben, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Jämlitz-Klein Düben,

| Gemeinde Tschernitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Tschernitz,

| Gemeinde Döbern, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Döbern,

| Gemeinde Felixsee, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Felixsee,

| Gemeinde Wiesengrund, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wiesengrund,

| Gemeinde Spremberg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Spremberg,

| Gemeinde Welzow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Welzow,

| Gemeinde Neuhausen/Spree, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neuhausen/Spree,

| Gemeinde Drebkau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Drebkau,

| Kreisfreie Stadt Cottbus mit den Gemarkungen Kahren, Gallinchen, Groß Gaglow und der Gemarkung Kiekebusch südlich der BAB 15, |
| --- |

Kreisfreie Stadt Cottbus mit den Gemarkungen Kahren, Gallinchen, Groß Gaglow und der Gemarkung Kiekebusch südlich der BAB 15,

| Landkreis Märkisch-Oderland:





  Gemeinde Bleyen-Genschmar, |
| --- |

Landkreis Märkisch-Oderland:

Gemeinde Bleyen-Genschmar,

| Gemeinde Neuhardenberg |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neuhardenberg

| Gemeinde Golzow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Golzow,

| Gemeinde Küstriner Vorland, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Küstriner Vorland,

| Gemeinde Alt Tucheband, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Alt Tucheband,

| Gemeinde Reitwein, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Reitwein,

| Gemeinde Podelzig, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Podelzig,

| Gemeinde Gusow-Platkow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gusow-Platkow,

| Gemeinde Seelow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Seelow,

| Gemeinde Vierlinden, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Vierlinden,

| Gemeinde Lindendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lindendorf,

| Gemeinde Fichtenhöhe, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Fichtenhöhe,

| Gemeinde Lietzen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lietzen,

| Gemeinde Falkenhagen (Mark), |
| --- |

Gemeinde Falkenhagen (Mark),

| Gemeinde Zeschdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Zeschdorf,

| Gemeinde Treplin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Treplin,

| Gemeinde Lebus, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lebus,

| Gemeinde Müncheberg mit den Gemarkungen Jahnsfelde, Trebnitz, Obersdorf, Münchehofe und Hermersdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Müncheberg mit den Gemarkungen Jahnsfelde, Trebnitz, Obersdorf, Münchehofe und Hermersdorf,

| Gemeinde Märkische Höhe mit der Gemarkung Ringenwalde, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Märkische Höhe mit der Gemarkung Ringenwalde,

| Gemeinde Bliesdorf mit der Gemarkung Metzdorf und Gemeinde Bliesdorf – östlich der B167 bis östlicher Teil, begrenzt aus Richtung Gemarkungsgrenze Neutrebbin südlich der Bahnlinie bis Straße „Sophienhof“ dieser westlich folgend bis „Ruesterchegraben“ weiter entlang Feldweg an den Windrädern Richtung „Herrnhof“, weiter entlang „Letschiner Hauptgraben“ nord-östlich bis Gemarkungsgrenze Alttrebbin und Kunersdorf – östlich der B167, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bliesdorf mit der Gemarkung Metzdorf und Gemeinde Bliesdorf – östlich der B167 bis östlicher Teil, begrenzt aus Richtung Gemarkungsgrenze Neutrebbin südlich der Bahnlinie bis Straße „Sophienhof“ dieser westlich folgend bis „Ruesterchegraben“ weiter entlang Feldweg an den Windrädern Richtung „Herrnhof“, weiter entlang „Letschiner Hauptgraben“ nord-östlich bis Gemarkungsgrenze Alttrebbin und Kunersdorf – östlich der B167,

| Gemeinde Bad Freienwalde mit den Gemarkungen Altglietzen, Altranft, Bad Freienwalde, Bralitz, Hohenwutzen, Schiffmühle, Hohensaaten und Neuenhagen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Bad Freienwalde mit den Gemarkungen Altglietzen, Altranft, Bad Freienwalde, Bralitz, Hohenwutzen, Schiffmühle, Hohensaaten und Neuenhagen,

| Gemeinde Falkenberg mit der Gemarkung Falkenberg östlich der L35, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Falkenberg mit der Gemarkung Falkenberg östlich der L35,

| Gemeinde Oderaue, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Oderaue,

| Gemeinde Wriezen mit den Gemarkungen Altwriezen, Jäckelsbruch, Neugaul, Beauregard, Eichwerder, Rathsdorf – östlich der B167 und Wriezen – östlich der B167, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wriezen mit den Gemarkungen Altwriezen, Jäckelsbruch, Neugaul, Beauregard, Eichwerder, Rathsdorf – östlich der B167 und Wriezen – östlich der B167,

| Gemeinde Neulewin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neulewin,

| Gemeinde Neutrebbin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neutrebbin,

| Gemeinde Letschin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Letschin,

| Gemeinde Zechin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Zechin,

| Landkreis Barnim:





  Gemeinde Lunow-Stolzenhagen, |
| --- |

Landkreis Barnim:

Gemeinde Lunow-Stolzenhagen,

| Gemeinde Parsteinsee, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Parsteinsee,

| Gemeinde Oderberg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Oderberg,

| Gemeinde Liepe, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Liepe,

| Gemeinde Hohenfinow (nördlich der B167), |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hohenfinow (nördlich der B167),

| Gemeinde Niederfinow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Niederfinow,

| Gemeinde (Stadt) Eberswalde mit den Gemarkungen Eberswalde nördlich der B167 und östlich der L200, Sommerfelde und Tornow nördlich der B167, |
| --- |

Gemeinde (Stadt) Eberswalde mit den Gemarkungen Eberswalde nördlich der B167 und östlich der L200, Sommerfelde und Tornow nördlich der B167,

| Gemeinde Chorin mit den Gemarkungen Brodowin, Chorin östlich der L200, Serwest, Neuehütte, Sandkrug östlich der L200, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Chorin mit den Gemarkungen Brodowin, Chorin östlich der L200, Serwest, Neuehütte, Sandkrug östlich der L200,

| Gemeinde Ziethen mit der Gemarkung Klein Ziethen östlich der Serwester Dorfstraße und östlich der B198, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ziethen mit der Gemarkung Klein Ziethen östlich der Serwester Dorfstraße und östlich der B198,

| Landkreis Uckermark:





  Gemeinde Angermünde mit den Gemarkungen Crussow, Stolpe, Gellmersdorf, Neukünkendorf, Bölkendorf, Herzsprung, Schmargendorf und den Gemarkungen Angermünde südlich und südöstlich der B2 und Dobberzin südlich der B2, |
| --- |

Landkreis Uckermark:

Gemeinde Angermünde mit den Gemarkungen Crussow, Stolpe, Gellmersdorf, Neukünkendorf, Bölkendorf, Herzsprung, Schmargendorf und den Gemarkungen Angermünde südlich und südöstlich der B2 und Dobberzin südlich der B2,

| Gemeinde Schwedt mit den Gemarkungen Criewen, Zützen, Schwedt, Stendell, Kummerow, Kunow, Vierraden, Blumenhagen, Oderbruchwiesen, Enkelsee, Gatow, Hohenfelde, Schöneberg, Flemsdorf und der Gemarkung Felchow östlich der B2, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schwedt mit den Gemarkungen Criewen, Zützen, Schwedt, Stendell, Kummerow, Kunow, Vierraden, Blumenhagen, Oderbruchwiesen, Enkelsee, Gatow, Hohenfelde, Schöneberg, Flemsdorf und der Gemarkung Felchow östlich der B2,

| Gemeinde Pinnow südlich und östlich der B2, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Pinnow südlich und östlich der B2,

| Gemeinde Berkholz-Meyenburg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Berkholz-Meyenburg,

| Gemeinde Mark Landin mit der Gemarkung Landin südlich der B2, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Mark Landin mit der Gemarkung Landin südlich der B2,

| Gemeinde Casekow mit der Gemarkung Woltersdorf und den Gemarkungen Biesendahlshof und Casekow östlich der L272 und südlich der L27, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Casekow mit der Gemarkung Woltersdorf und den Gemarkungen Biesendahlshof und Casekow östlich der L272 und südlich der L27,

| Gemeinde Hohenselchow-Groß Pinnow mit der Gemarkung Groß Pinnow und der Gemarkung Hohenselchow südlich der L27, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hohenselchow-Groß Pinnow mit der Gemarkung Groß Pinnow und der Gemarkung Hohenselchow südlich der L27,

| Gemeinde Gartz (Oder) mit der Gemarkung Friedrichsthal und den Gemarkungen Gartz und Hohenreinkendorf südlich der L27 und der B2 bis Kastanienallee, dort links abbiegend dem Schülerweg folgend bis Höhe Bahnhof, von hier in östlicher Richtung den Salveybach kreuzend bis zum Tantower Weg, diesen in nördlicher Richtung bis zu Stettiner Straße, diese weiter folgend bis zur B2, dieser in nördlicher Richtung folgend, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gartz (Oder) mit der Gemarkung Friedrichsthal und den Gemarkungen Gartz und Hohenreinkendorf südlich der L27 und der B2 bis Kastanienallee, dort links abbiegend dem Schülerweg folgend bis Höhe Bahnhof, von hier in östlicher Richtung den Salveybach kreuzend bis zum Tantower Weg, diesen in nördlicher Richtung bis zu Stettiner Straße, diese weiter folgend bis zur B2, dieser in nördlicher Richtung folgend,

| Gemeinde Mescherin mit der Gemarkung Mescherin, der Gemarkung Neurochlitz östlich der B2 und der Gemarkung Rosow nördlich der K 7311, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Mescherin mit der Gemarkung Mescherin, der Gemarkung Neurochlitz östlich der B2 und der Gemarkung Rosow nördlich der K 7311,

| Gemeinde Passow mit der Gemarkung Jamikow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Passow mit der Gemarkung Jamikow,

| Kreisfreie Stadt Frankfurt (Oder), |
| --- |

Kreisfreie Stadt Frankfurt (Oder),

| Landkreis Prignitz:





  Gemeinde Karstädt mit den Gemarkungen Neuhof und Kribbe und den Gemarkungen Groß Warnow, Klein Warnow, Reckenzin, Streesow und Dallmin östlich der Bahnstrecke Berlin/Spandau-Hamburg/Altona, |
| --- |

Landkreis Prignitz:

Gemeinde Karstädt mit den Gemarkungen Neuhof und Kribbe und den Gemarkungen Groß Warnow, Klein Warnow, Reckenzin, Streesow und Dallmin östlich der Bahnstrecke Berlin/Spandau-Hamburg/Altona,

| Gemeinde Berge, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Berge,

| Gemeinde Pirow mit den Gemarkungen Hülsebeck, Pirow, Bresch und Burow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Pirow mit den Gemarkungen Hülsebeck, Pirow, Bresch und Burow,

| Gemeinde Putlitz mit den Gemarkungen Sagast, Nettelbeck, Porep, Lütkendorf, Putlitz, Weitgendorf und Telschow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Putlitz mit den Gemarkungen Sagast, Nettelbeck, Porep, Lütkendorf, Putlitz, Weitgendorf und Telschow,

| Gemeinde Marienfließ mit den Gemarkungen Jännersdorf, Stepenitz und Krempendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Marienfließ mit den Gemarkungen Jännersdorf, Stepenitz und Krempendorf,

| Landkreis Oberspreewald-Lausitz:





  Gemeinde Vetschau mit den Gemarkungen Wüstenhain und Laasow, |
| --- |

Landkreis Oberspreewald-Lausitz:

Gemeinde Vetschau mit den Gemarkungen Wüstenhain und Laasow,

| Gemeinde Altdöbern mit den Gemarkungen Reddern, Ranzow, Pritzen, Altdöbern östlich der Bahnstrecke Altdöbern –Großräschen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Altdöbern mit den Gemarkungen Reddern, Ranzow, Pritzen, Altdöbern östlich der Bahnstrecke Altdöbern –Großräschen,

| Gemeinde Großräschen mit den Gemarkungen Woschkow, Dörrwalde, Allmosen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Großräschen mit den Gemarkungen Woschkow, Dörrwalde, Allmosen,

| Gemeinde Neu-Seeland, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neu-Seeland,

| Gemeinde Neupetershain, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Neupetershain,

| Gemeinde Senftenberg mit der Gemarkungen Peickwitz, Sedlitz, Kleinkoschen, Großkoschen und Hosena, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Senftenberg mit der Gemarkungen Peickwitz, Sedlitz, Kleinkoschen, Großkoschen und Hosena,

| Gemeinde Hohenbocka, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hohenbocka,

| Gemeinde Grünewald, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Grünewald,

| Gemeinde Hermsdorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Hermsdorf,

| Gemeinde Kroppen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kroppen,

| Gemeinde Ortrand, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ortrand,

| Gemeinde Großkmehlen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Großkmehlen,

| Gemeinde Lindenau, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lindenau,

| Gemeinde Frauendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Frauendorf,

| Gemeinde Ruhland, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ruhland,

| Gemeinde Guteborn |
| --- |

Gemeinde Guteborn

| Gemeinde Schwarzbach mit der Gemarkung Schwarzbach, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schwarzbach mit der Gemarkung Schwarzbach,

| Bundesland Sachsen:





  Landkreis Bautzen, |
| --- |

Bundesland Sachsen:

Landkreis Bautzen,

| Stadt Dresden:





  Stadtgebiet nördlich der BAB4 bis zum Verlauf westlich der Elbe, dann nördlich der B6, |
| --- |

Stadt Dresden:

Stadtgebiet nördlich der BAB4 bis zum Verlauf westlich der Elbe, dann nördlich der B6,

| Landkreis Görlitz, |
| --- |

Landkreis Görlitz,

| Landkreis Meißen:





  Gemeinde Diera-Zehren östlich der Elbe, |
| --- |

Landkreis Meißen:

Gemeinde Diera-Zehren östlich der Elbe,

| Gemeinde Ebersbach, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ebersbach,

| Gemeinde Glaubitz östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Glaubitz östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals,

| Gemeinde Klipphausen östlich der S177, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Klipphausen östlich der S177,

| Gemeinde Lampertswalde, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lampertswalde,

| Gemeinde Moritzburg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Moritzburg,

| Gemeinde Niederau östlich der B101, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Niederau östlich der B101,

| Gemeinde Nünchritz östlich der Elbe und südlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Nünchritz östlich der Elbe und südlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals,

| Gemeinde Priestewitz, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Priestewitz,

| Gemeinde Röderaue östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Röderaue östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals,

| Gemeinde Schönfeld, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Schönfeld,

| Gemeinde Stadt Coswig, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Coswig,

| Gemeinde Stadt Gröditz östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Gröditz östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals,

| Gemeinde Stadt Großenhain, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Großenhain,

| Gemeinde Stadt Meißen östlich des Straßenverlaufs der S177 bis zur B6, dann B6 bis zur B101, ab der B101 Elbtalbrücke Richtung Norden östlich der Elbe, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Meißen östlich des Straßenverlaufs der S177 bis zur B6, dann B6 bis zur B101, ab der B101 Elbtalbrücke Richtung Norden östlich der Elbe,

| Gemeinde Stadt Radebeul, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Radebeul,

| Gemeinde Stadt Radeburg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stadt Radeburg,

| Gemeinde Thiendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Thiendorf,

| Gemeinde Weinböhla, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Weinböhla,

| Gemeinde Wülknitz östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Wülknitz östlich des Grödel-Elsterwerdaer-Floßkanals,

| Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge:





  Gemeinde Stadt Wilsdruff nördlich der BAB4 zwischen den Abfahren Wilsdruff und Dreieck Dresden-West, |
| --- |

Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge:

Gemeinde Stadt Wilsdruff nördlich der BAB4 zwischen den Abfahren Wilsdruff und Dreieck Dresden-West,

| Bundesland Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:





  Landkreis Ludwigslust-Parchim:





  Gemeinde Balow mit dem Ortsteil: Balow, |
| --- |

Bundesland Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:

Landkreis Ludwigslust-Parchim:

Gemeinde Balow mit dem Ortsteil: Balow,

| Gemeinde Brunow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Bauerkuhl, Brunow (bei Ludwigslust), Klüß, Löcknitz (bei Parchim), |
| --- |

Gemeinde Brunow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Bauerkuhl, Brunow (bei Ludwigslust), Klüß, Löcknitz (bei Parchim),

| Gemeinde Dambeck mit dem Ortsteil und der Ortslage: Dambeck (bei Ludwigslust), |
| --- |

Gemeinde Dambeck mit dem Ortsteil und der Ortslage: Dambeck (bei Ludwigslust),

| Gemeinde Ganzlin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Barackendorf, Hof Retzow, Klein Damerow, Retzow, Wangelin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ganzlin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Barackendorf, Hof Retzow, Klein Damerow, Retzow, Wangelin,

| Gemeinde Gehlsbach mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Ausbau Darß, Darß, Hof Karbow, Karbow, Karbow-Ausbau, Quaßlin, Quaßlin Hof, Quaßliner Mühle, Vietlübbe, Wahlstorf |
| --- |

Gemeinde Gehlsbach mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Ausbau Darß, Darß, Hof Karbow, Karbow, Karbow-Ausbau, Quaßlin, Quaßlin Hof, Quaßliner Mühle, Vietlübbe, Wahlstorf

| Gemeinde Groß Godems mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Groß Godems, Klein Godems, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Groß Godems mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Groß Godems, Klein Godems,

| Gemeinde Karrenzin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Herzfeld, Karrenzin, Karrenzin-Ausbau, Neu Herzfeld, Repzin, Wulfsahl, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Karrenzin mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Herzfeld, Karrenzin, Karrenzin-Ausbau, Neu Herzfeld, Repzin, Wulfsahl,

| Gemeinde Kreien mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Ausbau Kreien, Hof Kreien, Kolonie Kreien, Kreien, Wilsen, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kreien mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Ausbau Kreien, Hof Kreien, Kolonie Kreien, Kreien, Wilsen,

| Gemeinde Kritzow mit dem Ortsteil und der Ortslage: Benzin, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Kritzow mit dem Ortsteil und der Ortslage: Benzin,

| Gemeinde Lübz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Burow, Gischow, Meyerberg, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Lübz mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Burow, Gischow, Meyerberg,

| Gemeinde Möllenbeck mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Carlshof, Horst, Menzendorf, Möllenbeck, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Möllenbeck mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Carlshof, Horst, Menzendorf, Möllenbeck,

| Gemeinde Muchow mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Muchow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Muchow mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Muchow,

| Gemeinde Parchim mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Slate, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Parchim mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Slate,

| Gemeinde Prislich mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Marienhof, Neese, Prislich, Werle, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Prislich mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Marienhof, Neese, Prislich, Werle,

| Gemeinde Rom mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Klein Niendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Rom mit dem Ortsteil und Ortslage: Klein Niendorf,

| Gemeinde Ruhner Berge mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dorf Poltnitz, Drenkow, Griebow, Jarchow, Leppin, Malow, Malower Mühle, Marnitz, Mentin, Mooster, Poitendorf, Poltnitz, Suckow, Tessenow, Zachow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ruhner Berge mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Dorf Poltnitz, Drenkow, Griebow, Jarchow, Leppin, Malow, Malower Mühle, Marnitz, Mentin, Mooster, Poitendorf, Poltnitz, Suckow, Tessenow, Zachow,

| Gemeinde Siggelkow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Groß Pankow, Klein Pankow, Neuburg, Redlin, Siggelkow, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Siggelkow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Groß Pankow, Klein Pankow, Neuburg, Redlin, Siggelkow,

| Gemeinde Stolpe mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Barkow, Granzin, Stolpe Ausbau, Stolpe, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Stolpe mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Barkow, Granzin, Stolpe Ausbau, Stolpe,

| Gemeinde Ziegendorf mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Drefahl, Meierstorf, Neu Drefahl, Pampin, Platschow, Stresendorf, Ziegendorf, |
| --- |

Gemeinde Ziegendorf mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Drefahl, Meierstorf, Neu Drefahl, Pampin, Platschow, Stresendorf, Ziegendorf,

| Gemeinde Zierzow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Kolbow, Zierzow. |
| --- |

Gemeinde Zierzow mit den Ortsteilen und Ortslagen: Kolbow, Zierzow.

3.   Estonia

The following restricted zones II in Estonia:

| — | Eesti Vabariik (välja arvatud Hiiu maakond). |
| --- | --- |

—

Eesti Vabariik (välja arvatud Hiiu maakond).

4.   Latvia

The following restricted zones II in Latvia:

| — | Aizkraukles novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Aizkraukles novads,

| — | Alūksnes novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Alūksnes novads,

| — | Augšdaugavas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Augšdaugavas novads,

| — | Ādažu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ādažu novads,

| — | Balvu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Balvu novads,

| — | Bauskas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Bauskas novads,

| — | Cēsu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Cēsu novads,

| — | Dienvidkurzemes novada Aizputes, Cīravas, Lažas, Durbes, Dunalkas, Tadaiķu, Vecpils, Bārtas, Sakas, Bunkas, Priekules, Gramzdas, Kalētu, Virgas, Dunikas, Vaiņodes, Gaviezes, Rucavas, Vērgales, Medzes pagasts, Nīcas pagasta daļa uz dienvidiem no apdzīvotas vietas Bernāti, autoceļa V1232, A11, V1222, Bārtas upes, Embūtes pagasta daļa uz dienvidiem no autoceļa P116, P106, autoceļa no apdzīvotas vietas Dinsdurbe, Kalvenes pagasta daļa uz rietumiem no ceļa pie Vārtājas upes līdz autoceļam A9, uz dienvidiem no autoceļa A9, uz rietumiem no autoceļa V1200, Kazdangas pagasta daļa uz rietumiem no ceļa V1200, P115, P117, V1296, Aizputes, Durbes, Pāvilostas, Priekules pilsēta, |
| --- | --- |

—

Dienvidkurzemes novada Aizputes, Cīravas, Lažas, Durbes, Dunalkas, Tadaiķu, Vecpils, Bārtas, Sakas, Bunkas, Priekules, Gramzdas, Kalētu, Virgas, Dunikas, Vaiņodes, Gaviezes, Rucavas, Vērgales, Medzes pagasts, Nīcas pagasta daļa uz dienvidiem no apdzīvotas vietas Bernāti, autoceļa V1232, A11, V1222, Bārtas upes, Embūtes pagasta daļa uz dienvidiem no autoceļa P116, P106, autoceļa no apdzīvotas vietas Dinsdurbe, Kalvenes pagasta daļa uz rietumiem no ceļa pie Vārtājas upes līdz autoceļam A9, uz dienvidiem no autoceļa A9, uz rietumiem no autoceļa V1200, Kazdangas pagasta daļa uz rietumiem no ceļa V1200, P115, P117, V1296, Aizputes, Durbes, Pāvilostas, Priekules pilsēta,

| — | Dobeles novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Dobeles novads,

| — | Gulbenes novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Gulbenes novads,

| — | Jelgavas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jelgavas novads,

| — | Jēkabpils novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jēkabpils novads,

| — | Krāslavas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Krāslavas novads,

| — | Kuldīgas novada Alsungas, Gudenieku, Kurmāles, Rendas, Kabiles, Vārmes, Pelču, Snēpeles, Turlavas, Ēdoles, Īvandes, Rumbas, Padures pagasts, Laidu pagasta daļa uz ziemeļiem no autoceļa V1296, Kuldīgas pilsēta, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kuldīgas novada Alsungas, Gudenieku, Kurmāles, Rendas, Kabiles, Vārmes, Pelču, Snēpeles, Turlavas, Ēdoles, Īvandes, Rumbas, Padures pagasts, Laidu pagasta daļa uz ziemeļiem no autoceļa V1296, Kuldīgas pilsēta,

| — | Ķekavas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ķekavas novads,

| — | Limbažu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Limbažu novads,

| — | Līvānu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Līvānu novads,

| — | Ludzas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ludzas novads,

| — | Madonas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Madonas novads,

| — | Mārupes novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mārupes novads,

| — | Ogres novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ogres novads,

| — | Olaines novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Olaines novads,

| — | Preiļu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Preiļu novads,

| — | Rēzeknes novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Rēzeknes novads,

| — | Ropažu novada Garkalnes, Ropažu pagasts, Stopiņu pagasta daļa, kas atrodas uz austrumiem no autoceļa V36, P4 un P5, Acones ielas, Dauguļupes ielas un Dauguļupītes, Vangažu pilsēta, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ropažu novada Garkalnes, Ropažu pagasts, Stopiņu pagasta daļa, kas atrodas uz austrumiem no autoceļa V36, P4 un P5, Acones ielas, Dauguļupes ielas un Dauguļupītes, Vangažu pilsēta,

| — | Salaspils novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Salaspils novads,

| — | Saldus novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Saldus novads,

| — | Saulkrastu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Saulkrastu novads,

| — | Siguldas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Siguldas novads,

| — | Smiltenes novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Smiltenes novads,

| — | Talsu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Talsu novads,

| — | Tukuma novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Tukuma novads,

| — | Valkas novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Valkas novads,

| — | Valmieras novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Valmieras novads,

| — | Varakļānu novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Varakļānu novads,

| — | Ventspils novads, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ventspils novads,

| — | Daugavpils valstspilsētas pašvaldība, |
| --- | --- |

—

Daugavpils valstspilsētas pašvaldība,

| — | Jelgavas valstspilsētas pašvaldība, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jelgavas valstspilsētas pašvaldība,

| — | Jūrmalas valstspilsētas pašvaldība, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jūrmalas valstspilsētas pašvaldība,

| — | Rēzeknes valstspilsētas pašvaldība. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rēzeknes valstspilsētas pašvaldība.

5.   Lithuania

The following restricted zones II in Lithuania:

| — | Alytaus miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Alytaus miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Alytaus rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Alytaus rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Anykščių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Anykščių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Akmenės rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Akmenės rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Birštono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Birštono savivaldybė,

| — | Biržų miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Biržų miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Biržų rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Biržų rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Druskininkų savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Druskininkų savivaldybė,

| — | Elektrėnų savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Elektrėnų savivaldybė,

| — | Ignalinos rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ignalinos rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Jonavos rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jonavos rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Joniškio rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Joniškio rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Jurbarko rajono savivaldybė: Eržvilko, Juodaičių, Seredžiaus, Smalininkų ir Viešvilės seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jurbarko rajono savivaldybė: Eržvilko, Juodaičių, Seredžiaus, Smalininkų ir Viešvilės seniūnijos,

| — | Kaišiadorių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kaišiadorių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Kauno miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kauno miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Kauno rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kauno rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Kazlų rūdos savivaldybė: Kazlų Rūdos seniūnija, išskyrus vakarinė dalis iki kelio 2602 ir 183, Plutiškių seniūnija, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kazlų rūdos savivaldybė: Kazlų Rūdos seniūnija, išskyrus vakarinė dalis iki kelio 2602 ir 183, Plutiškių seniūnija,

| — | Kelmės rajono savivaldybė: Kelmės, Kražių, Liolių, Tytuvėnų, Tytuvėnų apylinkių, Pakražančio ir Vaiguvos seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kelmės rajono savivaldybė: Kelmės, Kražių, Liolių, Tytuvėnų, Tytuvėnų apylinkių, Pakražančio ir Vaiguvos seniūnijos,

| — | Kėdainių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kėdainių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Klaipėdos rajono savivaldybė: Judrėnų, Endriejavo ir Veiviržėnų seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Klaipėdos rajono savivaldybė: Judrėnų, Endriejavo ir Veiviržėnų seniūnijos,

| — | Kupiškio rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kupiškio rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Kretingos rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kretingos rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Lazdijų rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Lazdijų rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Mažeikių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mažeikių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Molėtų rajono savivaldybė: Alantos, Balninkų, Čiulėnų, Inturkės, Joniškio, Luokesos, Mindūnų, Suginčių ir Videniškių seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Molėtų rajono savivaldybė: Alantos, Balninkų, Čiulėnų, Inturkės, Joniškio, Luokesos, Mindūnų, Suginčių ir Videniškių seniūnijos,

| — | Pagėgių savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Pagėgių savivaldybė,

| — | Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Panevėžio rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Panevėžio rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Panevėžio miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Panevėžio miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Pasvalio rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Pasvalio rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Radviliškio rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Radviliškio rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Rietavo savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Rietavo savivaldybė,

| — | Prienų rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Prienų rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Plungės rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Plungės rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Raseinių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Raseinių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Rokiškio rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Rokiškio rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Skuodo rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Skuodo rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Šakių rajono savivaldybė: Kriūkų, Lekėčių ir Lukšių seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šakių rajono savivaldybė: Kriūkų, Lekėčių ir Lukšių seniūnijos,

| — | Šalčininkų rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šalčininkų rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Šiaulių miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šiaulių miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Šiaulių rajono savivaldybė: Ginkūnų, Gruzdžių, Kairių, Kužių, Meškuičių, Raudėnų, Šakynos ir Šiaulių kaimiškosios seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šiaulių rajono savivaldybė: Ginkūnų, Gruzdžių, Kairių, Kužių, Meškuičių, Raudėnų, Šakynos ir Šiaulių kaimiškosios seniūnijos,

| — | Šilutės rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šilutės rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Širvintų rajono savivaldybė: Čiobiškio, Gelvonų, Jauniūnų, Kernavės, Musninkų ir Širvintų seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Širvintų rajono savivaldybė: Čiobiškio, Gelvonų, Jauniūnų, Kernavės, Musninkų ir Širvintų seniūnijos,

| — | Šilalės rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šilalės rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Švenčionių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Švenčionių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Tauragės rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Tauragės rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Telšių rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Telšių rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Trakų rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Trakų rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Ukmergės rajono savivaldybė: Deltuvos, Lyduokių, Pabaisko, Pivonijos, Siesikų, Šešuolių, Taujėnų, Ukmergės miesto, Veprių, Vidiškių ir Žemaitkiemo seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ukmergės rajono savivaldybė: Deltuvos, Lyduokių, Pabaisko, Pivonijos, Siesikų, Šešuolių, Taujėnų, Ukmergės miesto, Veprių, Vidiškių ir Žemaitkiemo seniūnijos,

| — | Utenos rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Utenos rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Varėnos rajono savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Varėnos rajono savivaldybė,

| — | Vilniaus miesto savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Vilniaus miesto savivaldybė,

| — | Vilniaus rajono savivaldybė: Avižienių, Bezdonių, Buivydžių, Dūkštų, Juodšilių, Kalvelių, Lavoriškių, Maišiagalos, Marijampolio, Medininkų, Mickūnų, Nemenčinės, Nemenčinės miesto, Nemėžio, Pagirių, Riešės, Rudaminos, Rukainių, Sudervės, Sužionių, Šatrininkų ir Zujūnų seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Vilniaus rajono savivaldybė: Avižienių, Bezdonių, Buivydžių, Dūkštų, Juodšilių, Kalvelių, Lavoriškių, Maišiagalos, Marijampolio, Medininkų, Mickūnų, Nemenčinės, Nemenčinės miesto, Nemėžio, Pagirių, Riešės, Rudaminos, Rukainių, Sudervės, Sužionių, Šatrininkų ir Zujūnų seniūnijos,

| — | Visagino savivaldybė, |
| --- | --- |

—

Visagino savivaldybė,

| — | Zarasų rajono savivaldybė. |
| --- | --- |

—

Zarasų rajono savivaldybė.

6.   Hungary

The following restricted zones II in Hungary:

| — | Békés megye 950150, 950250, 950350, 950450, 950550, 950650, 950660, 950750, 950850, 950860, 951050, 951150, 951250, 951260, 951350, 951450, 951460, 951550, 951650, 951750, 952150, 952250, 952350, 952450, 952550, 952650, 953250, 953260, 953270, 953350, 953450, 953550, 953560, 953950, 954050, 954060, 954150, 956250, 956350, 956450, 956550, 956650 és 956750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Békés megye 950150, 950250, 950350, 950450, 950550, 950650, 950660, 950750, 950850, 950860, 951050, 951150, 951250, 951260, 951350, 951450, 951460, 951550, 951650, 951750, 952150, 952250, 952350, 952450, 952550, 952650, 953250, 953260, 953270, 953350, 953450, 953550, 953560, 953950, 954050, 954060, 954150, 956250, 956350, 956450, 956550, 956650 és 956750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe,

| — | Fejér megye 403150, 403160, 403250, 403260, 403350, 404250, 404550, 404560, 404570, 405450, 405550, 405650, 406450 és 407050 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Fejér megye 403150, 403160, 403250, 403260, 403350, 404250, 404550, 404560, 404570, 405450, 405550, 405650, 406450 és 407050 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Hajdú-Bihar megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Hajdú-Bihar megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe,

| — | Heves megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Heves megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe,

| — | Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye 750250, 750550, 750650, 750750, 750850, 750970, 750980, 751050, 751150, 751160, 751250, 751260, 751350, 751360, 751450, 751460, 751470, 751550, 751650, 751750, 751850, 751950, 752150, 752250, 752350, 752450, 752460, 752550, 752560, 752650, 752750, 752850, 752950, 753060, 753070, 753150, 753250, 753310, 753450, 753550, 753650, 753660, 753750, 753850, 753950, 753960, 754050, 754150, 754250, 754360, 754370, 754850, 755550, 755650 és 755750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye 750250, 750550, 750650, 750750, 750850, 750970, 750980, 751050, 751150, 751160, 751250, 751260, 751350, 751360, 751450, 751460, 751470, 751550, 751650, 751750, 751850, 751950, 752150, 752250, 752350, 752450, 752460, 752550, 752560, 752650, 752750, 752850, 752950, 753060, 753070, 753150, 753250, 753310, 753450, 753550, 753650, 753660, 753750, 753850, 753950, 753960, 754050, 754150, 754250, 754360, 754370, 754850, 755550, 755650 és 755750 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Komárom-Esztergom megye: 250350, 250850, 250950, 251450, 251550, 251950, 252050, 252150, 252350, 252450, 252460, 252550, 252650, 252750, 252850, 252860, 252950, 252960, 253050, 253150, 253250, 253350, 253450 és 253550 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Komárom-Esztergom megye: 250350, 250850, 250950, 251450, 251550, 251950, 252050, 252150, 252350, 252450, 252460, 252550, 252650, 252750, 252850, 252860, 252950, 252960, 253050, 253150, 253250, 253350, 253450 és 253550 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Nógrád megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Nógrád megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Pest megye 570150, 570250, 570350, 570450, 570550, 570650, 570750, 570850, 570950, 571050, 571150, 571250, 571350, 571650, 571750, 571760, 571850, 571950, 572050, 573550, 573650, 574250, 577250, 580050 és 580150 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe, |
| --- | --- |

—

Pest megye 570150, 570250, 570350, 570450, 570550, 570650, 570750, 570850, 570950, 571050, 571150, 571250, 571350, 571650, 571750, 571760, 571850, 571950, 572050, 573550, 573650, 574250, 577250, 580050 és 580150 kódszámú vadgazdálkodási egységeinek teljes területe,

| — | Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe. |
| --- | --- |

—

Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye valamennyi vadgazdálkodási egységének teljes területe.

7.   Poland

The following restricted zones II in Poland:

| w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:





  gminy Kalinowo, Stare Juchy, Prostki oraz gmina wiejska Ełk w powiecie ełckim, |
| --- |

w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:

gminy Kalinowo, Stare Juchy, Prostki oraz gmina wiejska Ełk w powiecie ełckim,

| powiat elbląski, |
| --- |

powiat elbląski,

| powiat miejski Elbląg, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Elbląg,

| powiat gołdapski, |
| --- |

powiat gołdapski,

| powiat piski, |
| --- |

powiat piski,

| powiat bartoszycki, |
| --- |

powiat bartoszycki,

| powiat olecki, |
| --- |

powiat olecki,

| powiat giżycki, |
| --- |

powiat giżycki,

| powiat braniewski, |
| --- |

powiat braniewski,

| powiat kętrzyński, |
| --- |

powiat kętrzyński,

| powiat lidzbarski, |
| --- |

powiat lidzbarski,

| gminy Dźwierzuty Jedwabno, Pasym, Świętajno, Wielbark, Szczytno i miasto Szczytno w powiecie szczycieńskim, |
| --- |

gminy Dźwierzuty Jedwabno, Pasym, Świętajno, Wielbark, Szczytno i miasto Szczytno w powiecie szczycieńskim,

| powiat mrągowski, |
| --- |

powiat mrągowski,

| powiat węgorzewski, |
| --- |

powiat węgorzewski,

| powiat olsztyński, |
| --- |

powiat olsztyński,

| powiat miejski Olsztyn, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Olsztyn,

| powiat nidzicki, |
| --- |

powiat nidzicki,

| część powiatu ostródzkiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu ostródzkiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I,

| część powiatu nowomiejskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu nowomiejskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I,

| część powiatu iławskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu iławskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I,

| część powiatu działdowskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu działdowskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I,

| w województwie podlaskim:





  powiat bielski, |
| --- |

w województwie podlaskim:

powiat bielski,

| powiat grajewski, |
| --- |

powiat grajewski,

| powiat moniecki, |
| --- |

powiat moniecki,

| powiat sejneński, |
| --- |

powiat sejneński,

| powiat siemiatycki, |
| --- |

powiat siemiatycki,

| powiat hajnowski, |
| --- |

powiat hajnowski,

| gminy Ciechanowiec, Klukowo, Szepietowo, Kobylin-Borzymy, Nowe Piekuty, Sokoły i część gminy Kulesze Kościelne położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową w powiecie wysokomazowieckim, |
| --- |

gminy Ciechanowiec, Klukowo, Szepietowo, Kobylin-Borzymy, Nowe Piekuty, Sokoły i część gminy Kulesze Kościelne położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową w powiecie wysokomazowieckim,

| powiat białostocki, |
| --- |

powiat białostocki,

| powiat suwalski, |
| --- |

powiat suwalski,

| powiat miejski Suwałki, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Suwałki,

| powiat augustowski, |
| --- |

powiat augustowski,

| powiat sokólski, |
| --- |

powiat sokólski,

| powiat miejski Białystok, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Białystok,

| w województwie mazowieckim:





  gminy Domanice, Korczew, Kotuń, Mordy, Paprotnia, Przesmyki, Siedlce, Skórzec, Wiśniew, Wodynie, Zbuczyn w powiecie siedleckim, |
| --- |

w województwie mazowieckim:

gminy Domanice, Korczew, Kotuń, Mordy, Paprotnia, Przesmyki, Siedlce, Skórzec, Wiśniew, Wodynie, Zbuczyn w powiecie siedleckim,

| powiat miejski Siedlce, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Siedlce,

| gminy Ceranów, Jabłonna Lacka, Kosów Lacki, Repki, Sabnie, Sterdyń w powiecie sokołowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Ceranów, Jabłonna Lacka, Kosów Lacki, Repki, Sabnie, Sterdyń w powiecie sokołowskim,

| powiat łosicki, |
| --- |

powiat łosicki,

| powiat sochaczewski, |
| --- |

powiat sochaczewski,

| powiat zwoleński, |
| --- |

powiat zwoleński,

| powiat kozienicki, |
| --- |

powiat kozienicki,

| powiat lipski, |
| --- |

powiat lipski,

| powiat radomski |
| --- |

powiat radomski

| powiat miejski Radom, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Radom,

| powiat szydłowiecki, |
| --- |

powiat szydłowiecki,

| gminy Lubowidz i Kuczbork Osada w powiecie żuromińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Lubowidz i Kuczbork Osada w powiecie żuromińskim,

| gmina Wieczfnia Kościelna w powicie mławskim, |
| --- |

gmina Wieczfnia Kościelna w powicie mławskim,

| gminy Bodzanów, Słubice, Wyszogród i Mała Wieś w powiecie płockim, |
| --- |

gminy Bodzanów, Słubice, Wyszogród i Mała Wieś w powiecie płockim,

| powiat nowodworski, |
| --- |

powiat nowodworski,

| gminy Czerwińsk nad Wisłą, Naruszewo, Załuski w powiecie płońskim, |
| --- |

gminy Czerwińsk nad Wisłą, Naruszewo, Załuski w powiecie płońskim,

| gminy: miasto Kobyłka, miasto Marki, miasto Ząbki, miasto Zielonka, część gminy Tłuszcz ograniczona liniami kolejowymi: na północ od linii kolejowej biegnącej od wschodniej granicy gminy do miasta Tłuszcz oraz na wschód od linii kolejowej biegnącej od północnej granicy gminy do miasta Tłuszcz, część gminy Jadów położona na północ od linii kolejowej biegnącej od wschodniej do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie wołomińskim, |
| --- |

gminy: miasto Kobyłka, miasto Marki, miasto Ząbki, miasto Zielonka, część gminy Tłuszcz ograniczona liniami kolejowymi: na północ od linii kolejowej biegnącej od wschodniej granicy gminy do miasta Tłuszcz oraz na wschód od linii kolejowej biegnącej od północnej granicy gminy do miasta Tłuszcz, część gminy Jadów położona na północ od linii kolejowej biegnącej od wschodniej do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie wołomińskim,

| powiat garwoliński, |
| --- |

powiat garwoliński,

| gminy Boguty – Pianki, Brok, Zaręby Kościelne, Nur, Małkinia Górna, część gminy Wąsewo położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 60, część gminy wiejskiej Ostrów Mazowiecka położona na południe od miasta Ostrów Mazowiecka i na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę 60 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy miasta Ostrów Mazowiecka do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie ostrowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Boguty – Pianki, Brok, Zaręby Kościelne, Nur, Małkinia Górna, część gminy Wąsewo położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 60, część gminy wiejskiej Ostrów Mazowiecka położona na południe od miasta Ostrów Mazowiecka i na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę 60 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy miasta Ostrów Mazowiecka do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie ostrowskim,

| część gminy Sadowne położona na północny- zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową, część gminy Łochów położona na północny – zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową w powiecie węgrowskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Sadowne położona na północny- zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową, część gminy Łochów położona na północny – zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową w powiecie węgrowskim,

| gminy Brańszczyk, Długosiodło, Rząśnik, Wyszków, część gminy Zabrodzie położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr S8 w powiecie wyszkowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Brańszczyk, Długosiodło, Rząśnik, Wyszków, część gminy Zabrodzie położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr S8 w powiecie wyszkowskim,

| gminy Cegłów, Dębe Wielkie, Halinów, Latowicz, Mińsk Mazowiecki i miasto Mińsk Mazowiecki, Mrozy, Siennica, miasto Sulejówek w powiecie mińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Cegłów, Dębe Wielkie, Halinów, Latowicz, Mińsk Mazowiecki i miasto Mińsk Mazowiecki, Mrozy, Siennica, miasto Sulejówek w powiecie mińskim,

| powiat otwocki, |
| --- |

powiat otwocki,

| powiat warszawski zachodni, |
| --- |

powiat warszawski zachodni,

| powiat legionowski, |
| --- |

powiat legionowski,

| powiat piaseczyński, |
| --- |

powiat piaseczyński,

| powiat pruszkowski, |
| --- |

powiat pruszkowski,

| powiat grójecki, |
| --- |

powiat grójecki,

| powiat grodziski, |
| --- |

powiat grodziski,

| powiat żyrardowski, |
| --- |

powiat żyrardowski,

| powiat białobrzeski, |
| --- |

powiat białobrzeski,

| powiat przysuski, |
| --- |

powiat przysuski,

| powiat miejski Warszawa, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Warszawa,

| w województwie lubelskim:





  powiat bialski, |
| --- |

w województwie lubelskim:

powiat bialski,

| powiat miejski Biała Podlaska, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Biała Podlaska,

| powiat janowski, |
| --- |

powiat janowski,

| powiat puławski, |
| --- |

powiat puławski,

| powiat rycki, |
| --- |

powiat rycki,

| powiat łukowski, |
| --- |

powiat łukowski,

| powiat lubelski, |
| --- |

powiat lubelski,

| powiat miejski Lublin, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Lublin,

| powiat lubartowski, |
| --- |

powiat lubartowski,

| powiat łęczyński, |
| --- |

powiat łęczyński,

| powiat świdnicki, |
| --- |

powiat świdnicki,

| powiat biłgorajski, |
| --- |

powiat biłgorajski,

| powiat hrubieszowski, |
| --- |

powiat hrubieszowski,

| powiat krasnostawski, |
| --- |

powiat krasnostawski,

| powiat chełmski, |
| --- |

powiat chełmski,

| powiat miejski Chełm, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Chełm,

| powiat tomaszowski, |
| --- |

powiat tomaszowski,

| powiat kraśnicki, |
| --- |

powiat kraśnicki,

| powiat opolski, |
| --- |

powiat opolski,

| powiat parczewski, |
| --- |

powiat parczewski,

| powiat włodawski, |
| --- |

powiat włodawski,

| powiat radzyński, |
| --- |

powiat radzyński,

| powiat miejski Zamość, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Zamość,

| powiat zamojski, |
| --- |

powiat zamojski,

| w województwie podkarpackim:





  powiat stalowowolski, |
| --- |

w województwie podkarpackim:

powiat stalowowolski,

| powiat lubaczowski, |
| --- |

powiat lubaczowski,

| gminy Medyka, Stubno, część gminy Orły położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77, część gminy Żurawica na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77 w powiecie przemyskim, |
| --- |

gminy Medyka, Stubno, część gminy Orły położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77, część gminy Żurawica na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 77 w powiecie przemyskim,

| część powiatu jarosławskiego niewymieniona w części I załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu jarosławskiego niewymieniona w części I załącznika I,

| gmina Kamień w powiecie rzeszowskim, |
| --- |

gmina Kamień w powiecie rzeszowskim,

| gminy Cmolas, Dzikowiec, Kolbuszowa, Majdan Królewski i Niwiska powiecie kolbuszowskim, |
| --- |

gminy Cmolas, Dzikowiec, Kolbuszowa, Majdan Królewski i Niwiska powiecie kolbuszowskim,

| powiat leżajski, |
| --- |

powiat leżajski,

| powiat niżański, |
| --- |

powiat niżański,

| powiat tarnobrzeski, |
| --- |

powiat tarnobrzeski,

| gminy Adamówka, Sieniawa, Tryńcza, Przeworsk z miastem Przeworsk, Zarzecze w powiecie przeworskim, |
| --- |

gminy Adamówka, Sieniawa, Tryńcza, Przeworsk z miastem Przeworsk, Zarzecze w powiecie przeworskim,

| gmina Ostrów, część gminy Sędziszów Małopolski położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, |
| --- |

gmina Ostrów, część gminy Sędziszów Małopolski położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4,

| część gminy Czarna położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, część gminy Żyraków położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, część gminy wiejskiej Dębica położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4 w powiecie dębickim, |
| --- |

część gminy Czarna położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, część gminy Żyraków położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, część gminy wiejskiej Dębica położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4 w powiecie dębickim,

| powiat mielecki, |
| --- |

powiat mielecki,

| w województwie małopolskim:





  gminy Nawojowa, Piwniczna Zdrój, Rytro, Stary Sącz, część gminy Łącko położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Dunajec w powiecie nowosądeckim, |
| --- |

w województwie małopolskim:

gminy Nawojowa, Piwniczna Zdrój, Rytro, Stary Sącz, część gminy Łącko położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez rzekę Dunajec w powiecie nowosądeckim,

| gmina Szczawnica w powiecie nowotarskim, |
| --- |

gmina Szczawnica w powiecie nowotarskim,

| w województwie pomorskim:





  gminy Dzierzgoń i Stary Dzierzgoń w powiecie sztumskim, |
| --- |

w województwie pomorskim:

gminy Dzierzgoń i Stary Dzierzgoń w powiecie sztumskim,

| gmina Stare Pole, część gminy Nowy Staw położna na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 w powiecie malborskim, |
| --- |

gmina Stare Pole, część gminy Nowy Staw położna na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 w powiecie malborskim,

| gminy Stegny, Sztutowo i część gminy Nowy Dwór Gdański położona na północny - wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 7, następnie przez drogę nr 7 i S7 biegnącą do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie nowodworskim, |
| --- |

gminy Stegny, Sztutowo i część gminy Nowy Dwór Gdański położona na północny - wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 55 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 7, następnie przez drogę nr 7 i S7 biegnącą do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie nowodworskim,

| gmina Prabuty w powiecie kwidzyńskim, |
| --- |

gmina Prabuty w powiecie kwidzyńskim,

| w województwie świętokrzyskim:





  gmina Tarłów i część gminy Ożarów położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 74 biegnącą od miejscowości Honorów do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie opatowskim, |
| --- |

w województwie świętokrzyskim:

gmina Tarłów i część gminy Ożarów położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 74 biegnącą od miejscowości Honorów do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie opatowskim,

| część gminy Brody położona wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 9 i na północny - wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 0618T biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania w miejscowości Lipie oraz przez drogę biegnącą od miejscowości Lipie do wschodniej granicy gminy i część gminy Mirzec położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 744 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do miejscowości Tychów Stary a następnie przez drogę nr 0566T biegnącą od miejscowości Tychów Stary w kierunku północno – wschodnim do granicy gminy w powiecie starachowickim, |
| --- |

część gminy Brody położona wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 9 i na północny - wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 0618T biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania w miejscowości Lipie oraz przez drogę biegnącą od miejscowości Lipie do wschodniej granicy gminy i część gminy Mirzec położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 744 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy do miejscowości Tychów Stary a następnie przez drogę nr 0566T biegnącą od miejscowości Tychów Stary w kierunku północno – wschodnim do granicy gminy w powiecie starachowickim,

| gmina Gowarczów, część gminy Końskie położona na wschód od linii kolejowej, część gminy Stąporków położona na północ od linii kolejowej w powiecie koneckim, |
| --- |

gmina Gowarczów, część gminy Końskie położona na wschód od linii kolejowej, część gminy Stąporków położona na północ od linii kolejowej w powiecie koneckim,

| gminy Dwikozy i Zawichost w powiecie sandomierskim, |
| --- |

gminy Dwikozy i Zawichost w powiecie sandomierskim,

| w województwie lubuskim:





  gminy Bogdaniec, Deszczno, Kłodawa, Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Santok, Witnica w powiecie gorzowskim, |
| --- |

w województwie lubuskim:

gminy Bogdaniec, Deszczno, Kłodawa, Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Santok, Witnica w powiecie gorzowskim,

| powiat miejski Gorzów Wielkopolski, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Gorzów Wielkopolski,

| gminy Drezdenko, Strzelce Krajeńskie, Stare Kurowo, Zwierzyn w powiecie strzelecko – drezdeneckim, |
| --- |

gminy Drezdenko, Strzelce Krajeńskie, Stare Kurowo, Zwierzyn w powiecie strzelecko – drezdeneckim,

| powiat żarski, |
| --- |

powiat żarski,

| powiat słubicki, |
| --- |

powiat słubicki,

| gminy Brzeźnica, Iłowa, Gozdnica, Małomice Wymiarki, Żagań i miasto Żagań w powiecie żagańskim, |
| --- |

gminy Brzeźnica, Iłowa, Gozdnica, Małomice Wymiarki, Żagań i miasto Żagań w powiecie żagańskim,

| powiat krośnieński, |
| --- |

powiat krośnieński,

| powiat zielonogórski |
| --- |

powiat zielonogórski

| powiat miejski Zielona Góra, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Zielona Góra,

| powiat nowosolski, |
| --- |

powiat nowosolski,

| powiat sulęciński, |
| --- |

powiat sulęciński,

| powiat międzyrzecki, |
| --- |

powiat międzyrzecki,

| powiat świebodziński, |
| --- |

powiat świebodziński,

| powiat wschowski, |
| --- |

powiat wschowski,

| w województwie dolnośląskim:





  powiat zgorzelecki, |
| --- |

w województwie dolnośląskim:

powiat zgorzelecki,

| część powiatu polkowickiego niewymieniona w częsci III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu polkowickiego niewymieniona w częsci III załącznika I,

| część powiatu wołowskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu wołowskiego niewymieniona w części III załącznika I,

| gmina Jeżów Sudecki w powiecie karkonoskim, |
| --- |

gmina Jeżów Sudecki w powiecie karkonoskim,

| gminy Rudna, Ścinawa, miasto Lubin i część gminy Lubin niewymieniona w części III załącznika I w powiecie lubińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Rudna, Ścinawa, miasto Lubin i część gminy Lubin niewymieniona w części III załącznika I w powiecie lubińskim,

| gmina Malczyce, Miękinia, Środa Śląska, część gminy Kostomłoty położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, część gminy Udanin położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4 w powiecie średzkim, |
| --- |

gmina Malczyce, Miękinia, Środa Śląska, część gminy Kostomłoty położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4, część gminy Udanin położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr A4 w powiecie średzkim,

| gmina Wądroże Wielkie, część gminy Męcinka położona na północ od drogi nr 363 w powiecie jaworskim, |
| --- |

gmina Wądroże Wielkie, część gminy Męcinka położona na północ od drogi nr 363 w powiecie jaworskim,

| gminy Kunice, Legnickie Pole, Prochowice, Ruja w powiecie legnickim, |
| --- |

gminy Kunice, Legnickie Pole, Prochowice, Ruja w powiecie legnickim,

| gminy Wisznia Mała, Trzebnica, Zawonia, część gminy Oborniki Śląskie położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 340 w powiecie trzebnickim, |
| --- |

gminy Wisznia Mała, Trzebnica, Zawonia, część gminy Oborniki Śląskie położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 340 w powiecie trzebnickim,

| powiat lubański, |
| --- |

powiat lubański,

| powiat miejski Wrocław, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Wrocław,

| gminy Czernica, Długołęka, Siechnice, część gminy Żórawina położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4, część gminy Kąty Wrocławskie położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie wrocławskim, |
| --- |

gminy Czernica, Długołęka, Siechnice, część gminy Żórawina położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4, część gminy Kąty Wrocławskie położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie wrocławskim,

| gminy Jelcz - Laskowice, Oława z miastem Oława i część gminy Domaniów położona na północny wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie oławskim, |
| --- |

gminy Jelcz - Laskowice, Oława z miastem Oława i część gminy Domaniów położona na północny wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez autostradę A4 w powiecie oławskim,

| gmina Bierutów, Dziadowa Kłoda, miasto Oleśnica, część gminy wiejskiej Oleśnica położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr S8, część gminy Dobroszyce położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową biegnącą od północnej do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie oleśnickim, |
| --- |

gmina Bierutów, Dziadowa Kłoda, miasto Oleśnica, część gminy wiejskiej Oleśnica położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr S8, część gminy Dobroszyce położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową biegnącą od północnej do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie oleśnickim,

| powiat bolesławiecki, |
| --- |

powiat bolesławiecki,

| powiat milicki, |
| --- |

powiat milicki,

| powiat górowski, |
| --- |

powiat górowski,

| powiat głogowski, |
| --- |

powiat głogowski,

| gmina Świerzawa, Wojcieszów, część gminy Zagrodno położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Jadwisin – Modlikowice Zagrodno oraz na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od miejscowości Zagrodno do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie złotoryjskim, |
| --- |

gmina Świerzawa, Wojcieszów, część gminy Zagrodno położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Jadwisin – Modlikowice Zagrodno oraz na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od miejscowości Zagrodno do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie złotoryjskim,

| powiat lwówecki, |
| --- |

powiat lwówecki,

| gminy Czarny Bór, Stare Bogaczowice, Walim, miasto Boguszów - Gorce, miasto Jedlina – Zdrój, miasto Szczawno – Zdrój w powiecie wałbrzyskim, |
| --- |

gminy Czarny Bór, Stare Bogaczowice, Walim, miasto Boguszów - Gorce, miasto Jedlina – Zdrój, miasto Szczawno – Zdrój w powiecie wałbrzyskim,

| powiat miejski Wałbrzych, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Wałbrzych,

| gmina Świdnica, miasto Świdnica, miasto Świebodzice w powiecie świdnickim, |
| --- |

gmina Świdnica, miasto Świdnica, miasto Świebodzice w powiecie świdnickim,

| w województwie wielkopolskim:





  gminy Siedlec, Wolsztyn, część gminy Przemęt położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Borek – Kluczewo – Sączkowo – Przemęt – Błotnica – Starkowo – Boszkowo – Letnisko w powiecie wolsztyńskim, |
| --- |

w województwie wielkopolskim:

gminy Siedlec, Wolsztyn, część gminy Przemęt położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Borek – Kluczewo – Sączkowo – Przemęt – Błotnica – Starkowo – Boszkowo – Letnisko w powiecie wolsztyńskim,

| gmina Wielichowo, Rakoniewice, Granowo, część gminy Kamieniec położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 308 w powiecie grodziskim, |
| --- |

gmina Wielichowo, Rakoniewice, Granowo, część gminy Kamieniec położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 308 w powiecie grodziskim,

| powiat międzychodzki, |
| --- |

powiat międzychodzki,

| powiat nowotomyski, |
| --- |

powiat nowotomyski,

| powiat obornicki, |
| --- |

powiat obornicki,

| część gminy Połajewo na położona na południe od drogi łączącej miejscowości Chraplewo, Tarnówko-Boruszyn, Krosin, Jakubowo, Połajewo - ul. Ryczywolska do północno-wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie czarnkowsko-trzcianeckim, |
| --- |

część gminy Połajewo na położona na południe od drogi łączącej miejscowości Chraplewo, Tarnówko-Boruszyn, Krosin, Jakubowo, Połajewo - ul. Ryczywolska do północno-wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie czarnkowsko-trzcianeckim,

| powiat miejski Poznań, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Poznań,

| gminy Buk, Czerwonak, Dopiewo, Komorniki, Rokietnica, Stęszew, Swarzędz, Suchy Las, Tarnowo Podgórne, Murowana Goślina w powiecie poznańskim, |
| --- |

gminy Buk, Czerwonak, Dopiewo, Komorniki, Rokietnica, Stęszew, Swarzędz, Suchy Las, Tarnowo Podgórne, Murowana Goślina w powiecie poznańskim,

| powiat rawicki, |
| --- |

powiat rawicki,

| część powiatu szamotulskiego niewymieniona w części I załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu szamotulskiego niewymieniona w części I załącznika I,

| część powiatu gostyńskiego niewymieniona w części I i III załącznika I, |
| --- |

część powiatu gostyńskiego niewymieniona w części I i III załącznika I,

| gminy Kobylin, Zduny, część gminy Krotoszyn położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi: nr 15 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36, nr 36 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 15 do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 444, nr 444 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie krotoszyńskim, |
| --- |

gminy Kobylin, Zduny, część gminy Krotoszyn położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi: nr 15 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36, nr 36 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 15 do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 444, nr 444 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 36 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie krotoszyńskim,

| gmina Wijewo w powiecie leszczyńskim, |
| --- |

gmina Wijewo w powiecie leszczyńskim,

| w województwie łódzkim:





  gminy Białaczów, Drzewica, Opoczno i Poświętne w powiecie opoczyńskim, |
| --- |

w województwie łódzkim:

gminy Białaczów, Drzewica, Opoczno i Poświętne w powiecie opoczyńskim,

| gminy Biała Rawska, Regnów i Sadkowice w powiecie rawskim, |
| --- |

gminy Biała Rawska, Regnów i Sadkowice w powiecie rawskim,

| gmina Kowiesy w powiecie skierniewickim, |
| --- |

gmina Kowiesy w powiecie skierniewickim,

| w województwie zachodniopomorskim:





  gmina Boleszkowice i część gminy Dębno położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 126 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 23 w miejscowości Dębno, następnie na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 23 do skrzyżowania z ul. Jana Pawła II w miejscowości Cychry, następnie na południe od ul. Jana Pawła II do skrzyżowania z ul. Ogrodową i dalej na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez ul. Ogrodową, której przedłużenie biegnie do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie myśliborskim, |
| --- |

w województwie zachodniopomorskim:

gmina Boleszkowice i część gminy Dębno położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 126 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 23 w miejscowości Dębno, następnie na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 23 do skrzyżowania z ul. Jana Pawła II w miejscowości Cychry, następnie na południe od ul. Jana Pawła II do skrzyżowania z ul. Ogrodową i dalej na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez ul. Ogrodową, której przedłużenie biegnie do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie myśliborskim,

| gminy Cedynia, Gryfino, Mieszkowice, Moryń, część gminy Chojna położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi nr 31 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy i 124 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy w powiecie gryfińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Cedynia, Gryfino, Mieszkowice, Moryń, część gminy Chojna położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogi nr 31 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy i 124 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy w powiecie gryfińskim,

| gmina Kołbaskowo w powiecie polickim, |
| --- |

gmina Kołbaskowo w powiecie polickim,

| w województwie opolskim:





  gminy Brzeg, Lubsza, Lewin Brzeski, Olszanka, Skarbimierz w powiecie brzeskim, |
| --- |

w województwie opolskim:

gminy Brzeg, Lubsza, Lewin Brzeski, Olszanka, Skarbimierz w powiecie brzeskim,

| gminy Dąbrowa, Dobrzeń Wielki, Popielów, Murów, część gminy Łubniany położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Świerkle – Masów, ulicę Leśną w miejscowości Masów oraz na północ od ulicy Kolanowskiej biegnącej do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Turawa położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Powstańców Śląskich -Kolanowską -Opolską – Kotorską w miejscowości Węgry i dalej na północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Węgry- Kotórz Mały – Turawa – Rzędów – Kadłub Turawski – Zakrzów Turawski biegnącą do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie opolskim, |
| --- |

gminy Dąbrowa, Dobrzeń Wielki, Popielów, Murów, część gminy Łubniany położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Świerkle – Masów, ulicę Leśną w miejscowości Masów oraz na północ od ulicy Kolanowskiej biegnącej do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Turawa położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Powstańców Śląskich -Kolanowską -Opolską – Kotorską w miejscowości Węgry i dalej na północ od drogi łączącej miejscowości Węgry- Kotórz Mały – Turawa – Rzędów – Kadłub Turawski – Zakrzów Turawski biegnącą do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie opolskim,

| gmina Lasowice Wielkie, część gminy Kluczbork położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 45, a następnie od tego skrzyżowania na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 45 do skrzyżowania z ulicą Fabryczną w miejscowości Kluczbork i dalej na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Fabryczna -Dzierżonia – Strzelecka w miejscowości Kluczbork do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Wołczyn położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 w powiecie kluczborskim, |
| --- |

gmina Lasowice Wielkie, część gminy Kluczbork położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 45, a następnie od tego skrzyżowania na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 45 do skrzyżowania z ulicą Fabryczną w miejscowości Kluczbork i dalej na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez ulice Fabryczna -Dzierżonia – Strzelecka w miejscowości Kluczbork do wschodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Wołczyn położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 42 w powiecie kluczborskim,

| powiat namysłowski, |
| --- |

powiat namysłowski,

| w województwie śląskim:





  powiat miejski Sosnowiec, |
| --- |

w województwie śląskim:

powiat miejski Sosnowiec,

| powiat miejski Dąbrowa Górnicza, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Dąbrowa Górnicza,

| gminy Bobrowniki, Mierzęcice, Psary, Siewierz, miasto Będzin, miasto Czeladź, miasto Wojkowice w powiecie będzińskim, |
| --- |

gminy Bobrowniki, Mierzęcice, Psary, Siewierz, miasto Będzin, miasto Czeladź, miasto Wojkowice w powiecie będzińskim,

| gminy Łazy i Poręba w powiecie zawierciańskim. |
| --- |

gminy Łazy i Poręba w powiecie zawierciańskim.

8.   Slovakia

The following restricted zones II in Slovakia:

| — | the whole district of Gelnica, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Gelnica,

| — | the whole district of Poprad |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Poprad

| — | the whole district of Spišská Nová Ves, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Spišská Nová Ves,

| — | the whole district of Levoča, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Levoča,

| — | the whole district of Kežmarok, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Kežmarok,

| — | in the whole district of Michalovce except municipalities included in zone III, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the whole district of Michalovce except municipalities included in zone III,

| — | the whole district of Košice-okolie, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Košice-okolie,

| — | the whole district of Rožnava, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Rožnava,

| — | the whole city of Košice, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole city of Košice,

| — | in the district of Sobrance: Remetské Hámre, Vyšná Rybnica, Hlivištia, Ruská Bystrá, Podhoroď, Choňkovce, Ruský Hrabovec, Inovce, Beňatina, Koňuš, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Sobrance: Remetské Hámre, Vyšná Rybnica, Hlivištia, Ruská Bystrá, Podhoroď, Choňkovce, Ruský Hrabovec, Inovce, Beňatina, Koňuš,

| — | the whole district of Vranov nad Topľou, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Vranov nad Topľou,

| — | the whole district of Humenné except municipalities included in zone III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Humenné except municipalities included in zone III,

| — | the whole district of Snina, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Snina,

| — | the whole district of Prešov, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Prešov,

| — | the whole district of Sabinov, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Sabinov,

| — | the whole district of Svidník, except municipalities included in zone III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Svidník, except municipalities included in zone III,

| — | the whole district of Stropkov, except municipalities included in zone III, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Stropkov, except municipalities included in zone III,

| — | the whole district of Bardejov, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Bardejov,

| — | the whole district of Stará Ľubovňa, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Stará Ľubovňa,

| — | the whole district of Revúca, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Revúca,

| — | the whole district of Rimavská Sobota, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Rimavská Sobota,

| — | in the district of Veľký Krtíš, the whole municipalities not included in part I, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Veľký Krtíš, the whole municipalities not included in part I,

| — | the whole district of Lučenec, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Lučenec,

| — | the whole district of Poltár, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Poltár,

| — | the whole district of Zvolen, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Zvolen,

| — | the whole district of Detva, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Detva,

| — | the whole district of Krupina, except municipalities included in zone I, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Krupina, except municipalities included in zone I,

| — | the whole district of Banska Stiavnica, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Banska Stiavnica,

| — | the whole district of Žarnovica, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Žarnovica,

| — | in the district of Žiar nad Hronom the municipalities of Hronská Dúbrava, Trnavá Hora, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Žiar nad Hronom the municipalities of Hronská Dúbrava, Trnavá Hora,

| — | the whole district of Banska Bystica, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Banska Bystica,

| — | the whole district of Brezno, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Brezno,

| — | the whole district of Liptovsky Mikuláš, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Liptovsky Mikuláš,

| — | the whole district of Trebišov’, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Trebišov’,

| — | in the district of Zlaté Moravce, the whole municipalities not included in part I, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Zlaté Moravce, the whole municipalities not included in part I,

| — | in the district of Levice the municipality of Kozárovce. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the district of Levice the municipality of Kozárovce.

9.   Italy

The following restricted zones II in Italy:

| Piedmont Region:





  in the Province of Alessandria, the municipalities of Alice Bel Colle, Terzo, Bistagno, Cavatore Cavatore, Castelnuovo Bormida, Cabella Ligure, Carrega Ligure, Francavilla Bisio, Carpeneto, Costa Vescovato, Grognardo, Orsara Bormida, Pasturana, Melazzo, Mornese, Ovada, Predosa, Lerma, Fraconalto, Rivalta Bormida, Fresonara, Malvicino, Ponzone, San Cristoforo, Sezzadio, Rocca Grimalda, Garbagna, Tassarolo, Mongiardino Ligure, Morsasco, Montaldo Bormida, Prasco, Montaldeo, Belforte Monferrato, Albera Ligure, Bosio, Cantalupo Ligure, Castelletto D'orba, Cartosio, Acqui Terme, Arquata Scrivia, Parodi Ligure, Ricaldone, Gavi, Cremolino, Brignano-Frascata, Novi Ligure, Molare, Cassinelle, Morbello, Avolasca, Carezzano, Basaluzzo, Dernice, Trisobbio, Strevi, Sant'Agata Fossili, Pareto, Visone, Voltaggio, Tagliolo Monferrato, Casaleggio Boiro, Capriata D'orba, Castellania, Carrosio, Cassine, Vignole Borbera, Serravalle Scrivia, Silvano D'orba, Villalvernia, Roccaforte Ligure, Rocchetta Ligure, Sardigliano, Stazzano, Borghetto Di Borbera, Grondona, Cassano Spinola, Montacuto, Gremiasco, San Sebastiano Curone, Fabbrica Curone, Spigno Monferrato, Montechiaro d'Acqui, Castelletto d'Erro, Ponti, Denice, Pozzolo Formigaro, |
| --- |

Piedmont Region:

in the Province of Alessandria, the municipalities of Alice Bel Colle, Terzo, Bistagno, Cavatore Cavatore, Castelnuovo Bormida, Cabella Ligure, Carrega Ligure, Francavilla Bisio, Carpeneto, Costa Vescovato, Grognardo, Orsara Bormida, Pasturana, Melazzo, Mornese, Ovada, Predosa, Lerma, Fraconalto, Rivalta Bormida, Fresonara, Malvicino, Ponzone, San Cristoforo, Sezzadio, Rocca Grimalda, Garbagna, Tassarolo, Mongiardino Ligure, Morsasco, Montaldo Bormida, Prasco, Montaldeo, Belforte Monferrato, Albera Ligure, Bosio, Cantalupo Ligure, Castelletto D'orba, Cartosio, Acqui Terme, Arquata Scrivia, Parodi Ligure, Ricaldone, Gavi, Cremolino, Brignano-Frascata, Novi Ligure, Molare, Cassinelle, Morbello, Avolasca, Carezzano, Basaluzzo, Dernice, Trisobbio, Strevi, Sant'Agata Fossili, Pareto, Visone, Voltaggio, Tagliolo Monferrato, Casaleggio Boiro, Capriata D'orba, Castellania, Carrosio, Cassine, Vignole Borbera, Serravalle Scrivia, Silvano D'orba, Villalvernia, Roccaforte Ligure, Rocchetta Ligure, Sardigliano, Stazzano, Borghetto Di Borbera, Grondona, Cassano Spinola, Montacuto, Gremiasco, San Sebastiano Curone, Fabbrica Curone, Spigno Monferrato, Montechiaro d'Acqui, Castelletto d'Erro, Ponti, Denice, Pozzolo Formigaro,

| in the province of Asti, the municipality of Mombaldone, Castel Rocchero, Montabone, Sessame, Monastero Bormida, Roccaverano, |
| --- |

in the province of Asti, the municipality of Mombaldone, Castel Rocchero, Montabone, Sessame, Monastero Bormida, Roccaverano,

| Liguria Region:





  in the province of Genova, the municipalities of Bogliasco, Arenzano, Ceranesi, Ronco Scrivia, Mele, Isola Del Cantone, Lumarzo, Genova, Masone, Serra Riccò, Campo Ligure, Mignanego, Busalla, Bargagli, Savignone, Torriglia, Rossiglione, Sant'Olcese, Valbrevenna, Sori, Tiglieto, Campomorone, Cogoleto, Pieve Ligure, Davagna, Casella, Montoggio, Crocefieschi, Vobbia, Fascia, Gorreto, Propata, Rondanina, |
| --- |

Liguria Region:

in the province of Genova, the municipalities of Bogliasco, Arenzano, Ceranesi, Ronco Scrivia, Mele, Isola Del Cantone, Lumarzo, Genova, Masone, Serra Riccò, Campo Ligure, Mignanego, Busalla, Bargagli, Savignone, Torriglia, Rossiglione, Sant'Olcese, Valbrevenna, Sori, Tiglieto, Campomorone, Cogoleto, Pieve Ligure, Davagna, Casella, Montoggio, Crocefieschi, Vobbia, Fascia, Gorreto, Propata, Rondanina,

| in the province of Savona, the municipalities of Albisola Superiore, Celle Ligure, Stella, Pontinvrea, Varazze, Urbe, Sassello, Mioglia, Giusvalla, Dego (est SP 29) |
| --- |

in the province of Savona, the municipalities of Albisola Superiore, Celle Ligure, Stella, Pontinvrea, Varazze, Urbe, Sassello, Mioglia, Giusvalla, Dego (est SP 29)

| Emilia-Romagna Region:





  in the province of Piacenza, the municipalities of Ottone (ovest fiume Trebbia), Zerba, |
| --- |

Emilia-Romagna Region:

in the province of Piacenza, the municipalities of Ottone (ovest fiume Trebbia), Zerba,

| Lazio Region:





  the Area of the Municipality of Rome within the administrative boundaries of the Local Heatlh Unit “ASL RM1”, |
| --- |

Lazio Region:

the Area of the Municipality of Rome within the administrative boundaries of the Local Heatlh Unit “ASL RM1”,

| Sardinia Region:





  In South Sardinia Province the Municipalities of Escolca, Esterzili, Genoni, Gesturi, Isili, Nuragus, Nurallao, Nurri, Sadali, Serri, Seui, Seulo, Villanova Tulo, |
| --- |

Sardinia Region:

In South Sardinia Province the Municipalities of Escolca, Esterzili, Genoni, Gesturi, Isili, Nuragus, Nurallao, Nurri, Sadali, Serri, Seui, Seulo, Villanova Tulo,

| In Nuoro Province the Municipalities of Atzara, Austis, Bari Sardo, Bitti, Bolotana, Bortigali a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Cardedu, Dorgali, Elini, Fonni, Gadoni, Gairo, Girasole, Ilbono, Jerzu, Lanusei, Lei, Loceri, Lodè, Lodine, Lotzorai, Lula, Macomer a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Meana Sardo, Nuoro, Oliena, Onani, Orune, Osidda, Osini, Ovodda, Silanus, Sorgono, Teti, Tiana, Torpè, Tortolì, Ulassai, Ussassai, |
| --- |

In Nuoro Province the Municipalities of Atzara, Austis, Bari Sardo, Bitti, Bolotana, Bortigali a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Cardedu, Dorgali, Elini, Fonni, Gadoni, Gairo, Girasole, Ilbono, Jerzu, Lanusei, Lei, Loceri, Lodè, Lodine, Lotzorai, Lula, Macomer a ovest della Strada Statale 131, Meana Sardo, Nuoro, Oliena, Onani, Orune, Osidda, Osini, Ovodda, Silanus, Sorgono, Teti, Tiana, Torpè, Tortolì, Ulassai, Ussassai,

| In Oristano Province the Municipalities of Laconi, Nughedu Santa Vittoria, Sorradile, |
| --- |

In Oristano Province the Municipalities of Laconi, Nughedu Santa Vittoria, Sorradile,

| In Sassari Province the Municipalities of Alà dei Sardi, Anela, Benetutti, Bono, Bonorva East of SS 131, Bottidda, Buddusò, Budoni, Bultei, Burgos, Esporlatu, Illorai, Ittireddu, Mores a sud della Strada Statale 128bis – Strada Provinciale 63, Nughedu di San Nicolò, Nule, Olbia Isola Amministrativa (Berchiddeddu), Oschiri a sud della E 840, Ozieri a sud della Strada Provinciale 63 – Strada Provinciale 1 – Strada Statale 199, Padru, Pattada, San Teodoro. |
| --- |

In Sassari Province the Municipalities of Alà dei Sardi, Anela, Benetutti, Bono, Bonorva East of SS 131, Bottidda, Buddusò, Budoni, Bultei, Burgos, Esporlatu, Illorai, Ittireddu, Mores a sud della Strada Statale 128bis – Strada Provinciale 63, Nughedu di San Nicolò, Nule, Olbia Isola Amministrativa (Berchiddeddu), Oschiri a sud della E 840, Ozieri a sud della Strada Provinciale 63 – Strada Provinciale 1 – Strada Statale 199, Padru, Pattada, San Teodoro.

10.   Czech Republic

The following restricted zones II in the Czech Republic:

| Region of Liberec:





  in the district of Liberec, the municipalities of Arnoltice u Bulovky, Hajniště pod Smrkem, Nové Město pod Smrkem, Dětřichovec, Bulovka, Horní Řasnice, Dolní Pertoltice, Krásný Les u Frýdlantu, Jindřichovice pod Smrkem, Horní Pertoltice, Dolní Řasnice, Raspenava, Dolní Oldřiš, Ludvíkov pod Smrkem, Lázně Libverda, Háj u Habartic, Habartice u Frýdlantu, Kunratice u Frýdlantu, Víska u Frýdlantu, Poustka u Frýdlantu, Višňová u Frýdlantu, Předlánce, Černousy, Boleslav, Ves, Andělka, Frýdlant, Srbská. |
| --- |

Region of Liberec:

in the district of Liberec, the municipalities of Arnoltice u Bulovky, Hajniště pod Smrkem, Nové Město pod Smrkem, Dětřichovec, Bulovka, Horní Řasnice, Dolní Pertoltice, Krásný Les u Frýdlantu, Jindřichovice pod Smrkem, Horní Pertoltice, Dolní Řasnice, Raspenava, Dolní Oldřiš, Ludvíkov pod Smrkem, Lázně Libverda, Háj u Habartic, Habartice u Frýdlantu, Kunratice u Frýdlantu, Víska u Frýdlantu, Poustka u Frýdlantu, Višňová u Frýdlantu, Předlánce, Černousy, Boleslav, Ves, Andělka, Frýdlant, Srbská.

11.   Greece

The following restricted zones II in Greece:

| — | in the regional unit of Serres:






  — | part of the municipal departments of Kerkini, Agkistro, Petritsi, Sidirokastro, Promahonas, Achladochori (in Sintiki Municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in the regional unit of Serres:

—

part of the municipal departments of Kerkini, Agkistro, Petritsi, Sidirokastro, Promahonas, Achladochori (in Sintiki Municipality),

| — | part of municipal departments of Irakleia and Skotoussa (in Irakleia municipality).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

part of municipal departments of Irakleia and Skotoussa (in Irakleia municipality).’

PART III

1.   Bulgaria

The following restricted zones III in Bulgaria:

| — | in Blagoevgrad region:






  — | the whole municipality of Sandanski |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in Blagoevgrad region:

—

the whole municipality of Sandanski

| — | the whole municipality of Strumyani |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Strumyani

| — | the whole municipality of Petrich, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Petrich,

| — | the Pazardzhik region:






  — | the whole municipality of Pazardzhik, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

the Pazardzhik region:

—

the whole municipality of Pazardzhik,

| — | the whole municipality of Panagyurishte, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Panagyurishte,

| — | the whole municipality of Lesichevo, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Lesichevo,

| — | the whole municipality of Septemvri, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Septemvri,

| — | the whole municipality of Strelcha, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Strelcha,

| — | in Plovdiv region






  — | the whole municipality of Hisar, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in Plovdiv region

—

the whole municipality of Hisar,

| — | the whole municipality of Suedinenie, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Suedinenie,

| — | the whole municipality of Maritsa |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Maritsa

| — | the whole municipality of Rodopi, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Rodopi,

| — | the whole municipality of Plovdiv, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Plovdiv,

| — | in Varna region:






  — | the whole municipality of Byala, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

in Varna region:

—

the whole municipality of Byala,

| — | the whole municipality of Dolni Chiflik. |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole municipality of Dolni Chiflik.

2.   Italy

The following restricted zones III in Italy:

| Sardinia Region:





  in Nuoro Province the Municipalities of Aritzo, Arzana, Baunei, Belvi, Desulo, Gavoi, Mamoiada, Ollolai, Olzai, Oniferi, Orani, Orgosolo, Orotelli, Ottana, Sarule, Talana, Tonara, Triei, Urzulei, Villagrande Strisaili. |
| --- |

Sardinia Region:

in Nuoro Province the Municipalities of Aritzo, Arzana, Baunei, Belvi, Desulo, Gavoi, Mamoiada, Ollolai, Olzai, Oniferi, Orani, Orgosolo, Orotelli, Ottana, Sarule, Talana, Tonara, Triei, Urzulei, Villagrande Strisaili.

3.   Latvia

The following restricted zones III in Latvia:

| — | Dienvidkurzemes novada Embūtes pagasta daļa uz ziemeļiem autoceļa P116, P106, autoceļa no apdzīvotas vietas Dinsdurbe, Kalvenes pagasta daļa uz austrumiem no ceļa pie Vārtājas upes līdz autoceļam A9, uz ziemeļiem no autoceļa A9, uz austrumiem no autoceļa V1200, Kazdangas pagasta daļa uz austrumiem no ceļa V1200, P115, P117, V1296, |
| --- | --- |

—

Dienvidkurzemes novada Embūtes pagasta daļa uz ziemeļiem autoceļa P116, P106, autoceļa no apdzīvotas vietas Dinsdurbe, Kalvenes pagasta daļa uz austrumiem no ceļa pie Vārtājas upes līdz autoceļam A9, uz ziemeļiem no autoceļa A9, uz austrumiem no autoceļa V1200, Kazdangas pagasta daļa uz austrumiem no ceļa V1200, P115, P117, V1296,

| — | Kuldīgas novada Rudbāržu, Nīkrāces, Raņķu, Skrundas pagasts, Laidu pagasta daļa uz dienvidiem no autoceļa V1296, Skrundas pilsēta. |
| --- | --- |

—

Kuldīgas novada Rudbāržu, Nīkrāces, Raņķu, Skrundas pagasts, Laidu pagasta daļa uz dienvidiem no autoceļa V1296, Skrundas pilsēta.

4.   Lithuania

The following restricted zones III in Lithuania:

| — | Jurbarko rajono savivaldybė: Jurbarko miesto seniūnija, Girdžių, Jurbarkų Raudonės, Skirsnemunės, Veliuonos ir Šimkaičių seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Jurbarko rajono savivaldybė: Jurbarko miesto seniūnija, Girdžių, Jurbarkų Raudonės, Skirsnemunės, Veliuonos ir Šimkaičių seniūnijos,

| — | Molėtų rajono savivaldybė: Dubingių ir Giedraičių seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Molėtų rajono savivaldybė: Dubingių ir Giedraičių seniūnijos,

| — | Marijampolės savivaldybė: Sasnavos ir Šunskų seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Marijampolės savivaldybė: Sasnavos ir Šunskų seniūnijos,

| — | Šakių rajono savivaldybė: Barzdų, Gelgaudiškio, Griškabūdžio, Kidulių, Kudirkos Naumiesčio, Sintautų, Slavikų, Sudargo, Šakių, Plokščių ir Žvirgždaičių seniūnijos. |
| --- | --- |

—

Šakių rajono savivaldybė: Barzdų, Gelgaudiškio, Griškabūdžio, Kidulių, Kudirkos Naumiesčio, Sintautų, Slavikų, Sudargo, Šakių, Plokščių ir Žvirgždaičių seniūnijos.

| — | Kazlų rūdos savivaldybė: Antanavos, Jankų ir Kazlų Rūdos seniūnijos: vakarinė dalis iki kelio 2602 ir 183, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kazlų rūdos savivaldybė: Antanavos, Jankų ir Kazlų Rūdos seniūnijos: vakarinė dalis iki kelio 2602 ir 183,

| — | Kelmės rajono savivaldybė: Kelmės apylinkių, Kukečių, Šaukėnų ir Užvenčio seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Kelmės rajono savivaldybė: Kelmės apylinkių, Kukečių, Šaukėnų ir Užvenčio seniūnijos,

| — | Vilkaviškio rajono savivaldybė: Gižų, Kybartų, Klausučių, Pilviškių, Šeimenos ir Vilkaviškio miesto seniūnijos. |
| --- | --- |

—

Vilkaviškio rajono savivaldybė: Gižų, Kybartų, Klausučių, Pilviškių, Šeimenos ir Vilkaviškio miesto seniūnijos.

| — | Širvintų rajono savivaldybė: Alionių ir Zibalų seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Širvintų rajono savivaldybė: Alionių ir Zibalų seniūnijos,

| — | Šiaulių rajono savivaldybė: Bubių, Kuršėnų kaimiškoji ir Kuršėnų miesto seniūnijos, |
| --- | --- |

—

Šiaulių rajono savivaldybė: Bubių, Kuršėnų kaimiškoji ir Kuršėnų miesto seniūnijos,

| — | Ukmergės rajono savivaldybė: Želvos seniūnija, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ukmergės rajono savivaldybė: Želvos seniūnija,

| — | Vilniaus rajono savivaldybė: Paberžės seniūnija. |
| --- | --- |

—

Vilniaus rajono savivaldybė: Paberžės seniūnija.

5.   Poland

The following restricted zones III in Poland:

| w województwie zachodniopomorskim:





  gminy Banie, Trzcińsko – Zdrój, Widuchowa, część gminy Chojna położona na wschód linii wyznaczonej przez drogi nr 31 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy i 124 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy w powiecie gryfińskim, |
| --- |

w województwie zachodniopomorskim:

gminy Banie, Trzcińsko – Zdrój, Widuchowa, część gminy Chojna położona na wschód linii wyznaczonej przez drogi nr 31 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy i 124 biegnącą od południowej granicy gminy w powiecie gryfińskim,

| w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:





  gmina Rybno, część gminy Działdowo położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 538, część gminy Płośnica położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Burkat – Skurpie – Rutkowice – Płośnica – Turza Mała – Koty, część gminy Lidzbark położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 544 biegnącą od wschodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 541 oraz na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 541 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 544 w powiecie działdowskim, |
| --- |

w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim:

gmina Rybno, część gminy Działdowo położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 538, część gminy Płośnica położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Burkat – Skurpie – Rutkowice – Płośnica – Turza Mała – Koty, część gminy Lidzbark położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 544 biegnącą od wschodniej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 541 oraz na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 541 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 544 w powiecie działdowskim,

| część gminy Grodziczno położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 541 w powiecie nowomiejskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Grodziczno położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 541 w powiecie nowomiejskim,

| część gminy Lubawa położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 537 biegnącą od wschodniej graniczy gminy do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 541, a następnie na wschód od liini wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 541 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 537 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie iławskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Lubawa położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 537 biegnącą od wschodniej graniczy gminy do skrzyżowana z drogą nr 541, a następnie na wschód od liini wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 541 biegnącą od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 537 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie iławskim,

| gmina Dąbrówno, część gminy Grunwald położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 537 biegnącej od zachodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Stębark, a następnie na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę biegnącą od miejscowości Stębark do południowej granicy gminy i łączącej miejscowości Stębark – Łodwigowo w powiecie ostródzkim, |
| --- |

gmina Dąbrówno, część gminy Grunwald położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 537 biegnącej od zachodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Stębark, a następnie na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę biegnącą od miejscowości Stębark do południowej granicy gminy i łączącej miejscowości Stębark – Łodwigowo w powiecie ostródzkim,

| w województwie lubuskim:





  gminy Niegosławice, Szprotawa w powiecie żagańskim, |
| --- |

w województwie lubuskim:

gminy Niegosławice, Szprotawa w powiecie żagańskim,

| w województwie wielkopolskim:





  gminy Krzemieniewo, Lipno, Osieczna, Rydzyna, Święciechowa, Włoszakowice w powiecie leszczyńskim, |
| --- |

w województwie wielkopolskim:

gminy Krzemieniewo, Lipno, Osieczna, Rydzyna, Święciechowa, Włoszakowice w powiecie leszczyńskim,

| powiat miejski Leszno, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Leszno,

| gminy Kościan i miasto Kościan, Krzywiń, Śmigiel w powiecie kościańskim, |
| --- |

gminy Kościan i miasto Kościan, Krzywiń, Śmigiel w powiecie kościańskim,

| część gminy Dolsk położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 434 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 437, a następnie na zachód od drogi nr 437 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 434 do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy Śrem położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 310 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Śrem, następnie na zachód od drogi nr 432 w miejscowości Śrem oraz na zachód od drogi nr 434 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 432 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie śremskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Dolsk położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 434 biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy do skrzyżowania z drogą nr 437, a następnie na zachód od drogi nr 437 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 434 do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy Śrem położona na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 310 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Śrem, następnie na zachód od drogi nr 432 w miejscowości Śrem oraz na zachód od drogi nr 434 biegnącej od skrzyżowania z drogą nr 432 do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie śremskim,

| część gminy Gostyń położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 12 w powiecie gostyńskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Gostyń położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 12 w powiecie gostyńskim,

| część gminy Przemęt położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Borek – Kluczewo – Sączkowo – Przemęt – Błotnica – Starkowo – Boszkowo – Letnisko w powiecie wolsztyńskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Przemęt położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Borek – Kluczewo – Sączkowo – Przemęt – Błotnica – Starkowo – Boszkowo – Letnisko w powiecie wolsztyńskim,

| w województwie dolnośląskim:





  część gminy Lubin położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 335 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do granicy miasta Lubin oraz na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 333 biegnącą od granicy miasta Lubin do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie lubińskim |
| --- |

w województwie dolnośląskim:

część gminy Lubin położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 335 biegnącą od zachodniej granicy gminy do granicy miasta Lubin oraz na zachód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 333 biegnącą od granicy miasta Lubin do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie lubińskim

| gminy Prusice, Żmigród, część gminy Oborniki Śląskie położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 340 w powiecie trzebnickim, |
| --- |

gminy Prusice, Żmigród, część gminy Oborniki Śląskie położona na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 340 w powiecie trzebnickim,

| część gminy Zagrodno położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Jadwisin – Modlikowice - Zagrodno oraz na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od miejscowości Zagrodno do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy wiejskiej Złotoryja położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy w miejscowości Nowa Wieś Złotoryjska do granicy miasta Złotoryja oraz na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od granicy miasta Złotoryja do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie złotoryjskim, |
| --- |

część gminy Zagrodno położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Jadwisin – Modlikowice - Zagrodno oraz na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od miejscowości Zagrodno do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy wiejskiej Złotoryja położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę biegnącą od północnej granicy gminy w miejscowości Nowa Wieś Złotoryjska do granicy miasta Złotoryja oraz na północ od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 382 biegnącą od granicy miasta Złotoryja do wschodniej granicy gminy w powiecie złotoryjskim,

| część gminy Chocianów położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 335 biegnącą od wschodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Żabice, a następnie na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Żabice – Trzebnice – Chocianowiec - Chocianów – Pasternik biegnącą do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie polkowickim, |
| --- |

część gminy Chocianów położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 335 biegnącą od wschodniej granicy gminy do miejscowości Żabice, a następnie na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę łączącą miejscowości Żabice – Trzebnice – Chocianowiec - Chocianów – Pasternik biegnącą do zachodniej granicy gminy w powiecie polkowickim,

| gminy Chojnów i miasto Chojnów, Krotoszyce, Miłkowice w powiecie legnickim, |
| --- |

gminy Chojnów i miasto Chojnów, Krotoszyce, Miłkowice w powiecie legnickim,

| powiat miejski Legnica, |
| --- |

powiat miejski Legnica,

| część gminy Wołów położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez lnię kolejową biegnącą od północnej do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy Wińsko położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 36 biegnącą od północnej do zachodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Brzeg Dolny położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową od północnej do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie wołowskim. |
| --- |

część gminy Wołów położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez lnię kolejową biegnącą od północnej do południowej granicy gminy, część gminy Wińsko położona na południe od linii wyznaczonej przez drogę nr 36 biegnącą od północnej do zachodniej granicy gminy, część gminy Brzeg Dolny położona na wschód od linii wyznaczonej przez linię kolejową od północnej do południowej granicy gminy w powiecie wołowskim.

6.   Romania

The following restricted zones III in Romania:

| — | Zona orașului București, |
| --- | --- |

—

Zona orașului București,

| — | Județul Constanța, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Constanța,

| — | Județul Satu Mare, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Satu Mare,

| — | Județul Tulcea, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Tulcea,

| — | Județul Bacău, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Bacău,

| — | Județul Bihor, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Bihor,

| — | Județul Bistrița Năsăud, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Bistrița Năsăud,

| — | Județul Brăila, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Brăila,

| — | Județul Buzău, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Buzău,

| — | Județul Călărași, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Călărași,

| — | Județul Dâmbovița, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Dâmbovița,

| — | Județul Galați, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Galați,

| — | Județul Giurgiu, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Giurgiu,

| — | Județul Ialomița, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Ialomița,

| — | Județul Ilfov, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Ilfov,

| — | Județul Prahova, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Prahova,

| — | Județul Sălaj, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Sălaj,

| — | Județul Suceava |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Suceava

| — | Județul Vaslui, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Vaslui,

| — | Județul Vrancea, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Vrancea,

| — | Județul Teleorman, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Teleorman,

| — | Judeţul Mehedinţi, |
| --- | --- |

—

Judeţul Mehedinţi,

| — | Județul Gorj, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Gorj,

| — | Județul Argeș, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Argeș,

| — | Judeţul Olt, |
| --- | --- |

—

Judeţul Olt,

| — | Judeţul Dolj, |
| --- | --- |

—

Judeţul Dolj,

| — | Județul Arad, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Arad,

| — | Județul Timiș, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Timiș,

| — | Județul Covasna, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Covasna,

| — | Județul Brașov, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Brașov,

| — | Județul Botoșani, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Botoșani,

| — | Județul Vâlcea, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Vâlcea,

| — | Județul Iași, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Iași,

| — | Județul Hunedoara, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Hunedoara,

| — | Județul Alba, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Alba,

| — | Județul Sibiu, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Sibiu,

| — | Județul Caraș-Severin, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Caraș-Severin,

| — | Județul Neamț, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Neamț,

| — | Județul Harghita, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Harghita,

| — | Județul Mureș, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Mureș,

| — | Județul Cluj, |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Cluj,

| — | Județul Maramureş. |
| --- | --- |

—

Județul Maramureş.

7.   Slovakia

The following restricted zones III in Slovakia:

| — | In the district of Humenné: Závada, Nižná Sitnica, Vyšná Sitnica, Rohožník, Prituľany, Ruská Poruba, Ruská Kajňa, |
| --- | --- |

—

In the district of Humenné: Závada, Nižná Sitnica, Vyšná Sitnica, Rohožník, Prituľany, Ruská Poruba, Ruská Kajňa,

| — | In the district of Michalovce: Strážske, Staré, Oreské, Zbudza, Voľa, Nacina Ves, Pusté Čemerné, Lesné, Rakovec nad Ondavou, Petrovce nad Laborcom, Trnava pri Laborci, Vinné, Kaluža, Klokočov, Kusín, Jovsa, Poruba pod Vihorlatom, Hojné, Lúčky,Závadka, Hažín, Zalužice, Michalovce, Krásnovce, Šamudovce, Vŕbnica, Žbince, Lastomír, Zemplínska Široká, Čečehov, Jastrabie pri Michalovciach, Iňačovce, Senné, Palín, Sliepkovce, Hatalov, Budkovce, Stretava, Stretávka, Pavlovce nad Uhom, Vysoká nad Uhom, Bajany, |
| --- | --- |

—

In the district of Michalovce: Strážske, Staré, Oreské, Zbudza, Voľa, Nacina Ves, Pusté Čemerné, Lesné, Rakovec nad Ondavou, Petrovce nad Laborcom, Trnava pri Laborci, Vinné, Kaluža, Klokočov, Kusín, Jovsa, Poruba pod Vihorlatom, Hojné, Lúčky,Závadka, Hažín, Zalužice, Michalovce, Krásnovce, Šamudovce, Vŕbnica, Žbince, Lastomír, Zemplínska Široká, Čečehov, Jastrabie pri Michalovciach, Iňačovce, Senné, Palín, Sliepkovce, Hatalov, Budkovce, Stretava, Stretávka, Pavlovce nad Uhom, Vysoká nad Uhom, Bajany,

| — | the whole district of Medzilaborce, |
| --- | --- |

—

the whole district of Medzilaborce,

| — | In the district of Stropkov: Havaj, Malá Poľana, Bystrá, Mikové, Varechovce, Vladiča, Staškovce, Makovce, Veľkrop, Solník, Korunková, Bukovce, Krišľovce, Jakušovce, Kolbovce, |
| --- | --- |

—

In the district of Stropkov: Havaj, Malá Poľana, Bystrá, Mikové, Varechovce, Vladiča, Staškovce, Makovce, Veľkrop, Solník, Korunková, Bukovce, Krišľovce, Jakušovce, Kolbovce,

| — | In the district of Svidník: Pstruša, |
| --- | --- |

—

In the district of Svidník: Pstruša,

| — | The whole district of Sobrance except municipalities included in zone II. |
| --- | --- |

—

The whole district of Sobrance except municipalities included in zone II.

---

DECISIONS

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/51

---

COUNCIL DECISION (Euratom) 2023/225

of 30 January 2023

on the extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 49 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Decision 74/295/Euratom (1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) as a joint undertaking for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Decision 74/295/Euratom (1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) as a joint undertaking for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.

| (2) | The objectives of HKG were to construct, equip and operate a nuclear power station with a capacity of approximately 300 MWe at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The objectives of HKG were to construct, equip and operate a nuclear power station with a capacity of approximately 300 MWe at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany.

| (3) | After being in operation from 1987 to 1988, the nuclear power station was finally shut down on 1 September 1989 as a result of technical and economic difficulties. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

After being in operation from 1987 to 1988, the nuclear power station was finally shut down on 1 September 1989 as a result of technical and economic difficulties.

| (4) | Since 1 September 1989, the objective of HKG has been to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Since 1 September 1989, the objective of HKG has been to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.

| (5) | By Decision 2011/362/Euratom (2), the Council extended the status of HKG as a joint undertaking until 31 December 2017 to enable HKG to complete its decommissioning and surveillance programmes, in particular by lightening the financial burden. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

By Decision 2011/362/Euratom (2), the Council extended the status of HKG as a joint undertaking until 31 December 2017 to enable HKG to complete its decommissioning and surveillance programmes, in particular by lightening the financial burden.

| (6) | That extension period corresponded to the duration of arrangements concluded between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for financing HKG’s activities. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

That extension period corresponded to the duration of arrangements concluded between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for financing HKG’s activities.

| (7) | By letter of 7 October 2021, HKG asked for the further extension of the joint-undertaking status with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018, until 31 December 2022, which corresponds to the duration of further arrangements concluded between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for financing HKG’s activities. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

By letter of 7 October 2021, HKG asked for the further extension of the joint-undertaking status with retroactive effect from 1 January 2018, until 31 December 2022, which corresponds to the duration of further arrangements concluded between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for financing HKG’s activities.

| (8) | HKG’s joint-undertaking status should therefore be extended for the requested period. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

HKG’s joint-undertaking status should therefore be extended for the requested period.

| (9) | After 31 December 2022, any further extension of HKG’s Joint Undertaking status is conditional upon the submission by HKG of an application for a decommissioning licence, |
| --- | --- |

(9)

After 31 December 2022, any further extension of HKG’s Joint Undertaking status is conditional upon the submission by HKG of an application for a decommissioning licence,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   The joint-undertaking status, within the meaning of the Treaty, granted to Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (‘HKG’) is hereby extended for 5 years with effect from 1 January 2018.

2.   The objective of HKG shall be to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station located at Uentrop (Unna district) in the Federal Republic of Germany, up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to HKG.

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2023.

For the Council

The President

P. KULLGREN

---

(1)  Council Decision 74/295/Euratom of 4 June 1974 on the establishment of the Joint Undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) (OJ L 165, 20.6.1974, p. 7).

1

(2)  Council Decision 2011/362/Euratom of 17 June 2011 on extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) (OJ L 163, 23.6.2011, p. 24).

2

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/53

---

COUNCIL DECISION (Euratom) 2023/226

of 30 January 2023

on the extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 48 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Decision 74/295/Euratom (1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (‘HKG’) as a joint undertaking, within the meaning of the Treaty, for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Decision 74/295/Euratom (1), the Council established Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (‘HKG’) as a joint undertaking, within the meaning of the Treaty, for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.

| (2) | By Decision 2011/362/Euratom (2), the Council extended the status of HKG as a joint undertaking until 31 December 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By Decision 2011/362/Euratom (2), the Council extended the status of HKG as a joint undertaking until 31 December 2017.

| (3) | By Decision 74/296/Euratom (3) and by Decision of 16 November 1992 (4), the Council conferred on HKG a number of advantages listed in Annex III to the Treaty, for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By Decision 74/296/Euratom (3) and by Decision of 16 November 1992 (4), the Council conferred on HKG a number of advantages listed in Annex III to the Treaty, for a period of 25 years as from 1 January 1974.

| (4) | By Decision 2011/374/Euratom (5), the Council extended those advantages until 31 December 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By Decision 2011/374/Euratom (5), the Council extended those advantages until 31 December 2017.

| (5) | By letter of 7 October 2021, HKG asked for a further extension of the joint-undertaking status. The extension should also apply to the relevant exemptions from land transfer tax, land tax and trade earnings tax on long-term debt interest. In addition, HKG applied to be exempted from all direct taxes to which Joint Undertakings, their property, assets and revenue might otherwise be liable. It applied for that exemption to be framed in the most extensive way possible, and for it to be applicable from 1 January 2018 onwards. For reasons of clarity, but not to be understood as an exhaustive list, HKG sought exemption from the following direct taxes applicable in the Federal Republic of Germany: Körperschaftsteuer (corporate tax), Solidaritätszuschlag (‘solidarity surcharge’ to corporate tax), Gewerbesteuer (local business tax), Grunderwerbsteuer (tax on the acquisition of immovable property) and Grundsteuer (land tax). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

By letter of 7 October 2021, HKG asked for a further extension of the joint-undertaking status. The extension should also apply to the relevant exemptions from land transfer tax, land tax and trade earnings tax on long-term debt interest. In addition, HKG applied to be exempted from all direct taxes to which Joint Undertakings, their property, assets and revenue might otherwise be liable. It applied for that exemption to be framed in the most extensive way possible, and for it to be applicable from 1 January 2018 onwards. For reasons of clarity, but not to be understood as an exhaustive list, HKG sought exemption from the following direct taxes applicable in the Federal Republic of Germany: Körperschaftsteuer (corporate tax), Solidaritätszuschlag (‘solidarity surcharge’ to corporate tax), Gewerbesteuer (local business tax), Grunderwerbsteuer (tax on the acquisition of immovable property) and Grundsteuer (land tax).

| (6) | The current objective of HKG is to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The current objective of HKG is to implement a programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and, thereafter, to carry out a programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.

| (7) | There is no equivalent to those programmes in the Community since, to date, no high-temperature reactor has been shut down definitively in the Community. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

There is no equivalent to those programmes in the Community since, to date, no high-temperature reactor has been shut down definitively in the Community.

| (8) | Implementation of those programmes is therefore important since they provide useful experience for the nuclear industry and the future development of nuclear energy in the Community, in particular as regards the decommissioning of nuclear installations. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Implementation of those programmes is therefore important since they provide useful experience for the nuclear industry and the future development of nuclear energy in the Community, in particular as regards the decommissioning of nuclear installations.

| (9) | HKG should therefore be assisted with implementing the programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and the programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations, by lightening the financial burden and by conferring the requested additional tax advantages. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

HKG should therefore be assisted with implementing the programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and the programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations, by lightening the financial burden and by conferring the requested additional tax advantages.

| (10) | Arrangements for financing HKG’s activities have been agreed between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for the period up to 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Arrangements for financing HKG’s activities have been agreed between the Federal Republic of Germany, the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, HKG and its members for the period up to 31 December 2022.

| (11) | The advantages conferred on HKG should therefore be extended retroactively for the same period as the extension of its Joint Undertaking status, namely from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The advantages conferred on HKG should therefore be extended retroactively for the same period as the extension of its Joint Undertaking status, namely from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2022.

| (12) | After 31 December 2022, any further extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking HKG is conditional on the submission by HKG of an application for a decommissioning licence, |
| --- | --- |

(12)

After 31 December 2022, any further extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking HKG is conditional on the submission by HKG of an application for a decommissioning licence,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following advantages listed in Annex III to the Treaty conferred on the Joint Undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (‘HKG’) are hereby extended for five years with effect from 1 January 2018:

| (a) | under point 4 of that Annex, the exemption from the Grunderwerbsteuer (tax on the acquisition of immovable property); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

under point 4 of that Annex, the exemption from the Grunderwerbsteuer (tax on the acquisition of immovable property);

| (b) | under point 5 of that Annex, the exemption from all direct taxes to which the Joint Undertaking, its property, assets and revenue might otherwise be liable. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

under point 5 of that Annex, the exemption from all direct taxes to which the Joint Undertaking, its property, assets and revenue might otherwise be liable.

Article 2

The conferment of the advantages listed in Article 1 on HKG is subject to the condition that the Commission shall have access to all the industrial, technical and economic information, including that relating to safety, acquired by HKG in implementing the programme for decommissioning the nuclear power station up to the safe enclosure stage and in implementing the programme of surveillance of the enclosed nuclear installations.

That condition shall extend to all the information which HKG is entitled to pass on in accordance with the contracts concluded with it. The Commission shall determine which information shall be communicated to it, as well as the manner in which such communication shall be made, and shall ensure that this information is disseminated.

Article 3

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its notification.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to HKG.

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2023.

For the Council

The President

P. KULLGREN

---

(1)  Council Decision 74/295/Euratom of 4 June 1974 on the establishment of the Joint Undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) (OJ L 165, 20.6.1974, p. 7).

1

(2)  Council Decision 2011/362/Euratom of 17 June 2011 on extension of the joint-undertaking status of Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) (OJ L 163, 23.6.2011, p. 24).

2

(3)  Council Decision 74/296/Euratom of 4 June 1974 on the conferring of advantages on the Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) Joint Undertaking (OJ L 165, 20.6.1974, p. 14).

3

(4)  Not published in the Official Journal.

4

(5)  Council Decision 2011/374/Euratom of 17 June 2011 on extension of the advantages conferred on the joint undertaking Hochtemperatur-Kernkraftwerk GmbH (HKG) (OJ L 168, 28.6.2011, p. 8).

5

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/56

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2023/227

of 30 January 2023

appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/852 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the Committee of the Regions (1),

Having regard to the proposals of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.

| (2) | On 15 November 2021, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2021/2013 (2), appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 15 November 2021, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2021/2013 (2), appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions.

| (3) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the national mandate on the basis of which Ms Victòria ALSINA I BURGUÉS was proposed for appointment. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the national mandate on the basis of which Ms Victòria ALSINA I BURGUÉS was proposed for appointment.

| (4) | An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the national mandate on the basis of which Mr Gerard Martí FIGUERAS I ALBA was proposed for appointment. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

An alternate member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the national mandate on the basis of which Mr Gerard Martí FIGUERAS I ALBA was proposed for appointment.

| (5) | The Spanish Government has proposed Ms Meritxell SERRET I ALEU, representative of a regional body who holds a regional authority electoral mandate, Consejera de Acción Exterior y Unión Europea, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Regional Minister for Foreign Action and European Union, Government of Catalonia), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Spanish Government has proposed Ms Meritxell SERRET I ALEU, representative of a regional body who holds a regional authority electoral mandate, Consejera de Acción Exterior y Unión Europea, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Regional Minister for Foreign Action and European Union, Government of Catalonia), as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025.

| (6) | The Spanish Government has proposed Mr Miquel ROYO VIDAL, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Secretario de Acción Exterior del Gobierno, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Secretary for the Government’s Foreign Action, Government of Catalonia), as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Spanish Government has proposed Mr Miquel ROYO VIDAL, representative of a regional body who is politically accountable to an elected assembly, Secretario de Acción Exterior del Gobierno, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Secretary for the Government’s Foreign Action, Government of Catalonia), as an alternate member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following representatives of regional bodies who hold an electoral mandate or who are politically accountable to an elected assembly are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:

| (a) | as a member:






  — | Ms Meritxell SERRET I ALEU, Consejera de Acción Exterior y Unión Europea, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Regional Minister for Foreign Action and European Union, Government of Catalonia), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as a member:

—

Ms Meritxell SERRET I ALEU, Consejera de Acción Exterior y Unión Europea, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Regional Minister for Foreign Action and European Union, Government of Catalonia),

and

| (b) | as an alternate member:






  — | Mr Miquel ROYO VIDAL, Secretario de Acción Exterior del Gobierno, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Secretary for the Government’s Foreign Action, Government of Catalonia). |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as an alternate member:

—

Mr Miquel ROYO VIDAL, Secretario de Acción Exterior del Gobierno, Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña (Secretary for the Government’s Foreign Action, Government of Catalonia).

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2023.

For the Council

The President

P. KULLGREN

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 13.

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2021/2013 of 15 November 2021 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions (OJ L 410, 18.11.2021, p. 178).

2

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/58

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2023/228

of 30 January 2023

appointing three members and two alternate members, proposed by the Kingdom of Sweden, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/852 of 21 May 2019 determining the composition of the Committee of the Regions (1),

Having regard to the proposals of the Swedish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 300(3) of the Treaty, the Committee of the Regions is to consist of representatives of regional and local bodies who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly.

| (2) | On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 10 December 2019, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/2157 (2), appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.

| (3) | Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr Samuel GONZALEZ WESTLING, Ms Ulrika LANDERGREN and Mr Tomas RISTE. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Three members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Mr Samuel GONZALEZ WESTLING, Ms Ulrika LANDERGREN and Mr Tomas RISTE.

| (4) | Two alternate members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Ms Emma NOHRÉN and Mr Alexander WENDT. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Two alternate members’ seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the resignations of Ms Emma NOHRÉN and Mr Alexander WENDT.

| (5) | The Swedish Government has proposed the following representatives of local bodies who hold a local authority electoral mandate as members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025: Ms Marta AGUIRRE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Sigtuna kommun (Member of municipal council, Sigtuna municipality), Mr Pär LÖFSTRAND, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Östersunds kommun (Member of municipal council, Östersund municipality), and, on the basis of a different electoral mandate, Mr Tomas RISTE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige i Karlstads kommun (Member of municipal council, Karlstad municipality). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Swedish Government has proposed the following representatives of local bodies who hold a local authority electoral mandate as members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025: Ms Marta AGUIRRE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Sigtuna kommun (Member of municipal council, Sigtuna municipality), Mr Pär LÖFSTRAND, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Östersunds kommun (Member of municipal council, Östersund municipality), and, on the basis of a different electoral mandate, Mr Tomas RISTE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige i Karlstads kommun (Member of municipal council, Karlstad municipality).

| (6) | The Swedish Government has proposed the following representatives of regional bodies who hold a regional authority electoral mandate as alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025: Ms Mätta IVARSSON, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Skåne (Member of county council, Skåne Region), and Mr Kristoffer TAMSONS, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Stockholm (Member of county council, Stockholm region), |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Swedish Government has proposed the following representatives of regional bodies who hold a regional authority electoral mandate as alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025: Ms Mätta IVARSSON, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Skåne (Member of county council, Skåne Region), and Mr Kristoffer TAMSONS, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Stockholm (Member of county council, Stockholm region),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following representatives of regional or local bodies who hold an electoral mandate are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:

| (a) | as members:






  — | Ms Marta AGUIRRE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Sigtuna kommun (Member of municipal council, Sigtuna municipality), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as members:

—

Ms Marta AGUIRRE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Sigtuna kommun (Member of municipal council, Sigtuna municipality),

| — | Mr Pär LÖFSTRAND, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Östersunds kommun (Member of municipal council, Östersund municipality), |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Pär LÖFSTRAND, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige, Östersunds kommun (Member of municipal council, Östersund municipality),

| — | Mr Tomas RISTE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige i Karlstads kommun (Member of municipal council, Karlstad municipality) (change of mandate), |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Tomas RISTE, Ledamot i kommunfullmäktige i Karlstads kommun (Member of municipal council, Karlstad municipality) (change of mandate),

and

| (b) | as alternate members:






  — | Ms Mätta IVARSSON, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Skåne (Member of county council, Skåne Region), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate members:

—

Ms Mätta IVARSSON, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Skåne (Member of county council, Skåne Region),

| — | Mr Kristoffer TAMSONS, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Stockholm (Member of county council, Stockholm region). |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Kristoffer TAMSONS, Ledamot i regionfullmäktige, Region Stockholm (Member of county council, Stockholm region).

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2023.

For the Council

The President

P. KULLGREN

---

(1)  OJ L 139, 27.5.2019, p. 13.

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).

2

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/60

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2023/229

of 2 February 2023

amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28(1) and Article 41(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 28 February 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 (1) which established an assistance measure with a financial reference amount of EUR 50 000 000 intended to cover the financing of the provision of equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, such as personal protective equipment, first aid kits and fuel, to the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 28 February 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 (1) which established an assistance measure with a financial reference amount of EUR 50 000 000 intended to cover the financing of the provision of equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, such as personal protective equipment, first aid kits and fuel, to the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF).

| (2) | On 23 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/472 (2) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 100 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 23 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/472 (2) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 100 000 000.

| (3) | On 13 April 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/637 (3) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 150 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 13 April 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/637 (3) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 150 000 000.

| (4) | On 23 May 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/810 (4) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 160 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 23 May 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/810 (4) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 160 000 000.

| (5) | On 21 July 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1284 (5) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 170 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 21 July 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1284 (5) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 170 000 000.

| (6) | On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1972 (6) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 180 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1972 (6) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 180 000 000.

| (7) | In light of the ongoing armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the financial reference amount should be increased by an additional EUR 200 000 000 intended to cover the financing of the provision of equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, such as personal protective equipment, first aid kits and fuel, to the UAF. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In light of the ongoing armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the financial reference amount should be increased by an additional EUR 200 000 000 intended to cover the financing of the provision of equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, such as personal protective equipment, first aid kits and fuel, to the UAF.

| (8) | Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Article 1, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

  ‘3.   To achieve the objective set out in paragraph 2, the assistance measure shall finance the provision to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, such as personal protective equipment, first aid kits and fuel, as well as the maintenance, repair and refit of EPF-financed equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force and of identical equipment, as requested by Ukraine.’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in Article 1, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   To achieve the objective set out in paragraph 2, the assistance measure shall finance the provision to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, such as personal protective equipment, first aid kits and fuel, as well as the maintenance, repair and refit of EPF-financed equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force and of identical equipment, as requested by Ukraine.’

| (2) | in Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

  ‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the assistance measure shall be EUR 380 000 000.’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

in Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the assistance measure shall be EUR 380 000 000.’

| (3) | in Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

  ‘3.   In accordance with Article 29(5) of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the administrator for assistance measures may call for contributions following the adoption of this Decision, up to EUR 380 000 000. The funds called by the administrator for assistance measures shall only be used to pay expenditure within the limits approved by the Committee established by Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 in the related amending and annual budgets corresponding to the assistance measure.’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

in Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   In accordance with Article 29(5) of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the administrator for assistance measures may call for contributions following the adoption of this Decision, up to EUR 380 000 000. The funds called by the administrator for assistance measures shall only be used to pay expenditure within the limits approved by the Committee established by Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 in the related amending and annual budgets corresponding to the assistance measure.’

| (4) | in Article 2, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

  ‘4.   Expenditure related to the implementation of the assistance measure shall be eligible as from 1 January 2022 and until a date to be determined by the Council. The maximum eligible expenditure incurred before 11 March 2022 shall be EUR 50 000 000. The amount of EUR 220 000 000 shall be eligible from 21 July 2022. Expenditure related to the maintenance and repair shall be eligible from 17 October 2022. Expenditure related to refit shall be eligible from 2 February 2023’. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

in Article 2, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   Expenditure related to the implementation of the assistance measure shall be eligible as from 1 January 2022 and until a date to be determined by the Council. The maximum eligible expenditure incurred before 11 March 2022 shall be EUR 50 000 000. The amount of EUR 220 000 000 shall be eligible from 21 July 2022. Expenditure related to the maintenance and repair shall be eligible from 17 October 2022. Expenditure related to refit shall be eligible from 2 February 2023’.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2023.

For the Council

The President

J. ROSWALL

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 of 28 February 2022 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces (OJ L 61, 28.2.2022, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/472 of 23 March 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces (OJ L 96, 24.3.2022, p. 45).

2

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/637 of 13 April 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces (OJ L 117, 19.4.2022, p. 36).

3

(4)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/810 of 23 May 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces (OJ L 145, 24.5.2022, p. 42).

4

(5)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1284 of 21 July 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces (OJ L 195, 22.7.2022, p. 91).

5

(6)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1972 of 17 October 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/339 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces (OJ L 270, 18.10.2022, p. 97).

6

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/62

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2023/230

of 2 February 2023

amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28(1) and Article 41(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 28 February 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 (1) which established an assistance measure with a financial reference amount of EUR 450 000 000 intended to cover the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 28 February 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 (1) which established an assistance measure with a financial reference amount of EUR 450 000 000 intended to cover the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force.

| (2) | On 23 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/471 (2) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 900 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 23 March 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/471 (2) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 900 000 000.

| (3) | On 13 April 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/636 (3) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 1 350 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 13 April 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/636 (3) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 1 350 000 000.

| (4) | On 23 May 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/809 (4) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 1 840 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 23 May 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/809 (4) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 1 840 000 000.

| (5) | On 21 July 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1285 (5) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 2 330 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 21 July 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1285 (5) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 2 330 000 000.

| (6) | On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1971 (6) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 2 820 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1971 (6) amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338, which increased the financial reference amount to EUR 2 820 000 000.

| (7) | In light of the ongoing armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the financial reference amount should be increased by an additional EUR 300 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In light of the ongoing armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the financial reference amount should be increased by an additional EUR 300 000 000.

| (8) | Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION

Article 1

Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Article 1, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

  ‘3.   To achieve the objective set out in paragraph 2, the assistance measure shall finance the provision to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms designed to deliver lethal force as well as the maintenance, repair and refit of EPF-financed military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force and of identical equipment by military personnel in military sites, or in mixed forms of civil-military cooperation or in factories, as requested by Ukraine.’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in Article 1, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   To achieve the objective set out in paragraph 2, the assistance measure shall finance the provision to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms designed to deliver lethal force as well as the maintenance, repair and refit of EPF-financed military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force and of identical equipment by military personnel in military sites, or in mixed forms of civil-military cooperation or in factories, as requested by Ukraine.’

| (2) | in Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

  ‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the assistance measure shall be EUR 3 120 000 000.’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

in Article 2, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the assistance measure shall be EUR 3 120 000 000.’

| (3) | in Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

  ‘3.   In accordance with Article 29(5) of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the administrator for assistance measures may call for contributions following the adoption of this Decision, up to EUR 3 120 000 000. The funds called by the administrator for assistance measures shall only be used to pay expenditure within the limits approved by the Committee established by Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 in the related amending and annual budgets corresponding to the assistance measure.’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

in Article 2, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   In accordance with Article 29(5) of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the administrator for assistance measures may call for contributions following the adoption of this Decision, up to EUR 3 120 000 000. The funds called by the administrator for assistance measures shall only be used to pay expenditure within the limits approved by the Committee established by Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 in the related amending and annual budgets corresponding to the assistance measure.’

| (4) | in Article 2, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

  ‘4.   Expenditure related to the implementation of the assistance measure shall be eligible as from 1 January 2022 and until a date to be determined by the Council. The maximum eligible expenditure incurred before 11 March 2022 shall be EUR 450 000 000. The amount of EUR 1 280 000 000 shall be eligible from 21 July 2022. Expenditure related to maintenance and repair shall be eligible from 17 October 2022. Expenditure related to refit shall be eligible from 2 February 2023’
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(4)

in Article 2, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   Expenditure related to the implementation of the assistance measure shall be eligible as from 1 January 2022 and until a date to be determined by the Council. The maximum eligible expenditure incurred before 11 March 2022 shall be EUR 450 000 000. The amount of EUR 1 280 000 000 shall be eligible from 21 July 2022. Expenditure related to maintenance and repair shall be eligible from 17 October 2022. Expenditure related to refit shall be eligible from 2 February 2023’

| (5) | in Article 4, paragraph 4, point (j) is replaced by the following:






  ‘(j) | the Ministry of Defence, the Federal Foreign Office and the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community of Germany;’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(5)

in Article 4, paragraph 4, point (j) is replaced by the following:

‘(j)

the Ministry of Defence, the Federal Foreign Office and the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community of Germany;’.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2023.

For the Council

The President

J. ROSWALL

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 of 28 February 2022 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force (OJ L 60, 28.2.2022, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/471 of 23 March 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force (OJ L 96, 24.3.2022, p. 43).

2

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/636 of 13 April 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force (OJ L 117, 19.4.2022, p. 34).

3

(4)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/809 of 23 May 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force (OJ L 145, 24.5.2022, p. 40).

4

(5)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1285 of 21 July 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force (OJ L 195, 22.7.2022, p. 93).

5

(6)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1971 of 17 October 2022 amending Decision (CFSP) 2022/338 on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility for the supply to the Ukrainian Armed Forces of military equipment, and platforms, designed to deliver lethal force (OJ L 270, 18.10.2022, p. 95).

6

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/64

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2023/231

of 2 February 2023

on an assistance measure under the European Peace Facility to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces trained by the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28(1) and Article 41(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 (1) establishes the European Peace Facility (EPF) for the financing by Member States of Union actions under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security pursuant to Article 21(2), point (c), of the Treaty. In particular, pursuant to Article 1(2), point (b)(i), of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the EPF is to be used for the financing of assistance measures such as actions to strengthen the capacities of third States and regional and international organisations relating to military and defence matters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 (1) establishes the European Peace Facility (EPF) for the financing by Member States of Union actions under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security pursuant to Article 21(2), point (c), of the Treaty. In particular, pursuant to Article 1(2), point (b)(i), of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the EPF is to be used for the financing of assistance measures such as actions to strengthen the capacities of third States and regional and international organisations relating to military and defence matters.

| (2) | Deepening dialogue and cooperation in the field of security and defence is one of the main objectives of the Association Agreement between the Union and Ukraine (2). The enhanced cooperation in the area of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and alignment with the CFSP between the Union and Ukraine was one of the outcomes of the 22nd summit between the European Union and Ukraine of 6 October 2020, that was further strengthened at the 23rd summit between the European Union and Ukraine which took place in Kyiv on 12 October 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Deepening dialogue and cooperation in the field of security and defence is one of the main objectives of the Association Agreement between the Union and Ukraine (2). The enhanced cooperation in the area of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and alignment with the CFSP between the Union and Ukraine was one of the outcomes of the 22nd summit between the European Union and Ukraine of 6 October 2020, that was further strengthened at the 23rd summit between the European Union and Ukraine which took place in Kyiv on 12 October 2021.

| (3) | Russia’s aggression against Ukraine since 2014 dramatically escalated in February 2022 with the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) continue to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to protect its civilians with the available limited resources. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine since 2014 dramatically escalated in February 2022 with the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) continue to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine and to protect its civilians with the available limited resources.

| (4) | On 30 September 2022, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence of Ukraine jointly welcomed the Union’s support to the UAF and requested the Union to launch a European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine) for strengthening the capabilities of the UAF. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 30 September 2022, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence of Ukraine jointly welcomed the Union’s support to the UAF and requested the Union to launch a European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine) for strengthening the capabilities of the UAF.

| (5) | On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968 on a European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (3). As underlined in that Decision, the Mission is part of the EU Integrated Approach in providing support to Ukraine, which includes assistance measures supporting the UAF. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 17 October 2022, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968 on a European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (3). As underlined in that Decision, the Mission is part of the EU Integrated Approach in providing support to Ukraine, which includes assistance measures supporting the UAF.

| (6) | EUMAM Ukraine will be entrusted with the implementation of the assistance measure. It is to be responsible for the reimbursement of personal training kits and any other equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force provided by Member States to support the training activities. Close coordination will be required between the EU Military Staff, EUMAM Ukraine and other headquarters of the Mission, as well as between Member States engaged in the training activities. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

EUMAM Ukraine will be entrusted with the implementation of the assistance measure. It is to be responsible for the reimbursement of personal training kits and any other equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force provided by Member States to support the training activities. Close coordination will be required between the EU Military Staff, EUMAM Ukraine and other headquarters of the Mission, as well as between Member States engaged in the training activities.

| (7) | In accordance with Article 11(3) of Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968, personal training kits are no longer to be regarded as common costs once they are provided under an EPF assistance measure. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In accordance with Article 11(3) of Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968, personal training kits are no longer to be regarded as common costs once they are provided under an EPF assistance measure.

| (8) | The assistance measure is to be implemented taking into account the principles and requirements set out in Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, in particular compliance with Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (4), and in accordance with the rules for the implementation of revenue and expenditure financed under the EPF. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The assistance measure is to be implemented taking into account the principles and requirements set out in Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, in particular compliance with Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (4), and in accordance with the rules for the implementation of revenue and expenditure financed under the EPF.

| (9) | The Council reaffirms its determination to protect, promote and fulfil human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic principles, and to strengthen the rule of law and good governance in compliance with the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, in particular international human rights law and international humanitarian law, |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Council reaffirms its determination to protect, promote and fulfil human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic principles, and to strengthen the rule of law and good governance in compliance with the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, in particular international human rights law and international humanitarian law,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Establishment, objectives, scope and duration

1.   An assistance measure benefitting Ukraine (the ‘beneficiary’) to be financed under the European Peace Facility (EPF) (the ‘assistance measure’) is hereby established.

2.   The objective of the assistance measure is to support the capacity building of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) by the European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine), in order to allow the UAF to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine as well as to protect the civilian population against the ongoing military aggression.

3.   To achieve the objective set out in paragraph 2, the assistance measure shall finance the provision by Member States of:

| (a) | equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, as required to meet the operational requirements of EUMAM Ukraine and as requested by Ukraine; and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, as required to meet the operational requirements of EUMAM Ukraine and as requested by Ukraine; and

| (b) | services, including transportation, custody, maintenance and repair of the items under point (a) made available by Member States, for the training under EUMAM Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

services, including transportation, custody, maintenance and repair of the items under point (a) made available by Member States, for the training under EUMAM Ukraine.

4.   Upon completion of the training or when EUMAM Ukraine is terminated, the custody of the equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, which were provided under this assistance measure, shall be transferred back to the beneficiary. Based on needs by Ukraine, items within the personal kits may be transferred back to the beneficiary once they have been used in the training.

5.   The duration of the assistance measure shall be 24 months from the date of adoption of this Decision or until the expiry of the Decision establishing EUMAM Ukraine, whichever is the earlier.

Article 2

Financial arrangements

1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the assistance measure shall be EUR 45 000 000.

2.   All expenditure shall be managed in accordance with the rules for the implementation of revenue and expenditure for operations financed under the EPF.

3.   In accordance with Article 29(5) of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, the administrator for operations may call for contributions following the adoption of this Decision, up to EUR 45 000 000. The funds called by the administrator for operations shall only be used to pay expenditure within the limits approved by the Committee established by Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 in the related amending budget corresponding to the assistance measure.

4.   Expenditure related to the implementation of the assistance measure shall be eligible from the date of the launch of EUMAM Ukraine. Expenditure related to personal training kits shall be eligible under this assistance measure from the date of entry into force of this Decision.

Article 3

Arrangements with the beneficiary

1.   The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (the ‘High Representative’) shall make the necessary arrangements with the beneficiary to ensure its compliance with the requirements and conditions established by this Decision as a condition for the provision of support under the assistance measure.

2.   The arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 shall include provisions obliging the beneficiary to ensure:

| (a) | the compliance of the units of the UAF supported under the assistance measure with relevant international law, in particular international human rights law and international humanitarian law; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the compliance of the units of the UAF supported under the assistance measure with relevant international law, in particular international human rights law and international humanitarian law;

| (b) | the proper and efficient use of any assets provided under the assistance measure for the purposes for which they were provided; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the proper and efficient use of any assets provided under the assistance measure for the purposes for which they were provided;

| (c) | the sufficient maintenance of any assets provided under the assistance measure to ensure their usability and their operational availability over their life cycle; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the sufficient maintenance of any assets provided under the assistance measure to ensure their usability and their operational availability over their life cycle;

| (d) | that any assets provided under the assistance measure will not be lost, or be transferred without the consent of the Facility Committee established under Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 to persons or entities other than those identified in the arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, at the end of their life cycle. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

that any assets provided under the assistance measure will not be lost, or be transferred without the consent of the Facility Committee established under Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 to persons or entities other than those identified in the arrangements referred to in paragraph 1, at the end of their life cycle.

3.   The arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 shall include provisions on the suspension and termination of support under the assistance measure in the event of the beneficiary being found in breach of the obligations set out in paragraph 2.

Article 4

Implementation

1.   The High Representative shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this Decision in accordance with Decision (CFSP) 2021/509, and with the rules for the implementation of revenue and expenditure financed under the EPF, in line with the Integrated Methodological Framework for assessing and identifying the required measures and controls for assistance measures under the EPF.

2.   The activities referred to in Article 1(3), relating to the reimbursement and monitoring of the equipment and supplies not designed to deliver lethal force, provided by Member States, shall be implemented by EUMAM Ukraine.

Article 5

Monitoring, control and evaluation

1.   The High Representative shall monitor the respect by the beneficiary of the obligations set out in Article 3. This monitoring shall be used to provide awareness of the context and the risks of breaches of the obligations established in accordance with Article 3, and shall contribute to the prevention of such breaches, including violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by units of the UAF supported under the assistance measure.

2.   The post-shipment control of equipment shall be organised in line with the Integrated Methodological Framework for assessing and identifying the required measures and controls for assistance measures under the EPF.

3.   The High Representative shall conduct a final evaluation upon completion of the assistance measure to assess whether the assistance measure has contributed to reaching the objective stated in Article 1(2).

Article 6

Reporting

During the period of implementation, the High Representative shall provide the Political and Security Committee (PSC) with six-monthly reports on the implementation of the assistance measure, in accordance with Article 63 of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509. The administrator for operations, with the support of the Mission Commander, shall regularly inform the Facility Committee established by Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 on the implementation of revenue and expenditure in accordance with Article 38 of that Decision.

Article 7

Suspension and termination

1.   The PSC may decide to suspend wholly or partially the implementation of the assistance measure in accordance with Article 64 of Decision (CFSP) 2021/509.

2.   The PSC may also recommend that the Council terminate the assistance measure.

Article 8

Entry into force

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

Done at Brussels, 2 February 2023.

For the Council

The President

J. ROSWALL

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/509 of 22 March 2021 establishing a European Peace Facility, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/528 (OJ L 102, 24.3.2021, p. 14).

1

(2)  Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (OJ L 161, 29.5.2014, p. 3).

2

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1968 of 17 October 2022 on a European Union Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM Ukraine) (OJ L 270, 18.10.2022, p. 85).

3

(4)  Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (OJ L 335, 13.12.2008, p. 99).

4

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/68

---

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2023/232

of 25 July 2022

on the State aid SA.55208 (2020/C) (ex 2022/NN) implemented by Czechia for Czech Post

(notified under document C(2022) 5136)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1), point (a), thereof,

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions and having regard to their comments,

Whereas:

1.   PROCEDURE

| (1) | On 18 January 2018, the Czech authorities pre-notified compensation to Czech Post for the provision of the universal postal service obligation (‘USO’) over the 2018-2022 period. On 8 March 2019, following pre-notification discussions in particular on the net avoided cost (‘NAC’) methodology, the Czech authorities withdrew this pre-notification. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 January 2018, the Czech authorities pre-notified compensation to Czech Post for the provision of the universal postal service obligation (‘USO’) over the 2018-2022 period. On 8 March 2019, following pre-notification discussions in particular on the net avoided cost (‘NAC’) methodology, the Czech authorities withdrew this pre-notification.

| (2) | On 20 August 2019, the Czech authorities again pre-notified compensation to Czech Post for the provision of the USO over the 2018-2022 period (‘the measure’). Compared to the pre-notification of 18 January 2018, the measure was amended in particular as regards the calculation of the NAC. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 20 August 2019, the Czech authorities again pre-notified compensation to Czech Post for the provision of the USO over the 2018-2022 period (‘the measure’). Compared to the pre-notification of 18 January 2018, the measure was amended in particular as regards the calculation of the NAC.

| (3) | On 8 and 22 November 2019, the Commission received two formal complaints from two competitors of Czech Post, Zásilkovna s.r.o. (‘Zàsilkovna’) and První Novinová Společnost a.s. (‘PNS’, former ‘Mediaservis’). The complaints were registered under numbers SA.55686 (2019/FC) and SA.55497 (2019/FC) (1) respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 8 and 22 November 2019, the Commission received two formal complaints from two competitors of Czech Post, Zásilkovna s.r.o. (‘Zàsilkovna’) and První Novinová Společnost a.s. (‘PNS’, former ‘Mediaservis’). The complaints were registered under numbers SA.55686 (2019/FC) and SA.55497 (2019/FC) (1) respectively.

| (4) | The complaints were forwarded to the Czech authorities on 4 December 2019. The Czech authorities replied by letter dated 31 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The complaints were forwarded to the Czech authorities on 4 December 2019. The Czech authorities replied by letter dated 31 January 2020.

| (5) | On 28 January 2020, the Czech authorities notified compensation to be granted to Czech Post for the provision of the USO over the 2018-2022 period. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 28 January 2020, the Czech authorities notified compensation to be granted to Czech Post for the provision of the USO over the 2018-2022 period.

| (6) | On 12 March 2020, the Commission requested additional information from the Czech authorities, which replied by letter dated 24 April 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 12 March 2020, the Commission requested additional information from the Czech authorities, which replied by letter dated 24 April 2020.

| (7) | By decision dated 23 June 2020, the Commission informed the Czech authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in respect of the aid (2) (‘the opening decision’). The Commission requested the Czech authorities to submit their comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid, and also invited all interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

By decision dated 23 June 2020, the Commission informed the Czech authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in respect of the aid (2) (‘the opening decision’). The Commission requested the Czech authorities to submit their comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid, and also invited all interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.

| (8) | The Commission received the comments on the opening decision from the Czech authorities and from Czech Post by letter dated 24 July 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Commission received the comments on the opening decision from the Czech authorities and from Czech Post by letter dated 24 July 2020.

| (9) | The Commission received comments from Zàsilkovna on the opening decision by letter dated 2 October 2020 and from PNS by letter dated 3 October 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Commission received comments from Zàsilkovna on the opening decision by letter dated 2 October 2020 and from PNS by letter dated 3 October 2020.

| (10) | The Commission forwarded the comments from all third parties to the Czech authorities on 9 November 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission forwarded the comments from all third parties to the Czech authorities on 9 November 2020.

| (11) | The Czech authorities provided their observations on the comments from third parties by letter dated on 3 February 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Czech authorities provided their observations on the comments from third parties by letter dated on 3 February 2021.

| (12) | On 9 July 2021, the Commission’s services sent a letter to Zàsilkovna and PNS informing them that cases SA.55686 (2019/FC) and SA.55497 (2019/FC) would be closed and that the formal investigation procedure would be jointly processed under case number SA.55208 (2020/C). As a result, the comments and the information provided with the complaints in cases SA.55686 (2019/FC) and SA.55497 (2019/FC) would be examined in the context of the formal investigation procedure SA.55208 (2020/C). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

On 9 July 2021, the Commission’s services sent a letter to Zàsilkovna and PNS informing them that cases SA.55686 (2019/FC) and SA.55497 (2019/FC) would be closed and that the formal investigation procedure would be jointly processed under case number SA.55208 (2020/C). As a result, the comments and the information provided with the complaints in cases SA.55686 (2019/FC) and SA.55497 (2019/FC) would be examined in the context of the formal investigation procedure SA.55208 (2020/C).

| (13) | On 12 November 2021, the Commission requested additional information from the Czech authorities. The Czech authorities replied by letter dated 10 December 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

On 12 November 2021, the Commission requested additional information from the Czech authorities. The Czech authorities replied by letter dated 10 December 2021.

| (14) | On 2 December 2021 Zàsilkovna sent further comments to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

On 2 December 2021 Zàsilkovna sent further comments to the Commission.

| (15) | On 17 February 2022 and 29 March 2022, the Commission requested clarification on the information that the Czech authorities submitted by letter of 10 December 2021. The Czech authorities replied by letters of 16 March 2022 and 1 April 2022, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

On 17 February 2022 and 29 March 2022, the Commission requested clarification on the information that the Czech authorities submitted by letter of 10 December 2021. The Czech authorities replied by letters of 16 March 2022 and 1 April 2022, respectively.

| (16) | Czechia exceptionally agrees to waive its rights deriving from Article 342 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation No 1/1958 (3) and to have this Decision adopted and notified in English. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Czechia exceptionally agrees to waive its rights deriving from Article 342 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation No 1/1958 (3) and to have this Decision adopted and notified in English.

2.   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE/AID

2.1.   The beneficiary: Czech Post

| (17) | The sole beneficiary of the measure is Czech Post, which is the main postal operator in Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The sole beneficiary of the measure is Czech Post, which is the main postal operator in Czechia.

| (18) | Czech Post is wholly owned by the State and was founded in 1993 by the Ministry of Economy of the Czech Republic, in accordance with the State-owned Enterprises Act (4). Its legal and ownership statuses are regulated by the State-owned Enterprises Act (5). |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Czech Post is wholly owned by the State and was founded in 1993 by the Ministry of Economy of the Czech Republic, in accordance with the State-owned Enterprises Act (4). Its legal and ownership statuses are regulated by the State-owned Enterprises Act (5).

| (19) | Besides postal services, Czech Post also provides a number of other services, such as financial services (banking services, cash handling services, and services related to the payment of pensions). |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Besides postal services, Czech Post also provides a number of other services, such as financial services (banking services, cash handling services, and services related to the payment of pensions).

| (20) | Despite the liberalisation of the Czech postal market on 1 January 2013, competition in the letter market did not develop significantly. The most important competitors of Czech Post in the letter market are PNS and Česká distribuční and, in the parcel market, are PPL CZ (Professional Parcel Logistic), Direct Parcel Distribution CZ (DPD), General Logistics Systems Czech Republic (GLS) and Zásilkovna. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Despite the liberalisation of the Czech postal market on 1 January 2013, competition in the letter market did not develop significantly. The most important competitors of Czech Post in the letter market are PNS and Česká distribuční and, in the parcel market, are PPL CZ (Professional Parcel Logistic), Direct Parcel Distribution CZ (DPD), General Logistics Systems Czech Republic (GLS) and Zásilkovna.

2.2.   The USO entrusted to Czech Post

| (21) | By decision of 12 December 2017 of the national postal regulator, the Czech Telecommunication Office (‘CTO’) (6), Czech Post has been entrusted with the USO from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

By decision of 12 December 2017 of the national postal regulator, the Czech Telecommunication Office (‘CTO’) (6), Czech Post has been entrusted with the USO from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022.

| (22) | The scope of the USO entrusted to Czech Post is set out in national legislation, namely Section 3, paragraph 1, of the Postal Services Act (7), and includes:






  (a) | the delivery of postal items up to two kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(22)

The scope of the USO entrusted to Czech Post is set out in national legislation, namely Section 3, paragraph 1, of the Postal Services Act (7), and includes:

(a)

the delivery of postal items up to two kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad);

| (b) | the delivery of postal parcels up to ten kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the delivery of postal parcels up to ten kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad);

| (c) | the delivery of registered items up to two kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the delivery of registered items up to two kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad);

| (d) | the delivery of insured items up to ten kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the delivery of insured items up to ten kilogrammes (domestically and to abroad);

| (e) | postal money orders (‘PMO’); |
| --- | --- |

(e)

postal money orders (‘PMO’);

| (f) | the free delivery of postal items up to seven kilogrammes for blind and partially-sighted persons (domestically and to abroad); |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the free delivery of postal items up to seven kilogrammes for blind and partially-sighted persons (domestically and to abroad);

| (g) | the delivery of postal items from abroad within the scope of services mentioned in points (a) to (d) and (f); |
| --- | --- |

(g)

the delivery of postal items from abroad within the scope of services mentioned in points (a) to (d) and (f);

| (h) | the delivery of postal parcels up to 20 kilogrammes from abroad; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

the delivery of postal parcels up to 20 kilogrammes from abroad;

| (i) | the delivery of ‘M bags’ up to 30 kilogrammes (to abroad and from abroad only); this service consists of special bags containing newspapers, periodicals, books and similar printed documentation for the same addressee at the same address; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the delivery of ‘M bags’ up to 30 kilogrammes (to abroad and from abroad only); this service consists of special bags containing newspapers, periodicals, books and similar printed documentation for the same addressee at the same address;

| (j) | international business reply service: a service that allows for the collection in advance from the sender of the cost of postage for a reply letter sent to another country; it is not an independent postal service because it only includes a different method of payment of the price for postal items up to two kilogrammes in the scope of the USO; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

international business reply service: a service that allows for the collection in advance from the sender of the cost of postage for a reply letter sent to another country; it is not an independent postal service because it only includes a different method of payment of the price for postal items up to two kilogrammes in the scope of the USO;

| (k) | international reply coupons: a different method of payment of the postage for postal items. The coupon can be exchanged for stamps representing the minimum postage for a priority airmail letter of up to twenty grammes sent to another Universal Postal Union Member State. |
| --- | --- |

(k)

international reply coupons: a different method of payment of the postage for postal items. The coupon can be exchanged for stamps representing the minimum postage for a priority airmail letter of up to twenty grammes sent to another Universal Postal Union Member State.

| (23) | As a universal service provider, Czech Post is obliged to ensure accessibility to all universal postal services, at affordable prices, throughout the whole territory of Czechia, and at least once every working day. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

As a universal service provider, Czech Post is obliged to ensure accessibility to all universal postal services, at affordable prices, throughout the whole territory of Czechia, and at least once every working day.

| (24) | The legal basis for the provision of the USO is the following:






  (a) | Act No 29/2000 Coll., on Postal Services and Amending Certain Acts (‘the Postal Services Act’); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(24)

The legal basis for the provision of the USO is the following:

(a)

Act No 29/2000 Coll., on Postal Services and Amending Certain Acts (‘the Postal Services Act’);

| (b) | the CTO’s decision of 12 December 2017 (8) entrusting the USO to Czech Post, from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the CTO’s decision of 12 December 2017 (8) entrusting the USO to Czech Post, from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022;

| (c) | Government Order No 178/2015 Coll., on the determination of the minimum number of workplaces for the provision of universal services (9); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Government Order No 178/2015 Coll., on the determination of the minimum number of workplaces for the provision of universal services (9);

| (d) | Decree No 464/2012 Coll., on the determination of specifications of individual universal services and basic quality requirements for their provision; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Decree No 464/2012 Coll., on the determination of specifications of individual universal services and basic quality requirements for their provision;

| (e) | Decree No 465/2012 Coll., on the method of keeping separate accounts for cost and revenues of the postal licence holder; and |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Decree No 465/2012 Coll., on the method of keeping separate accounts for cost and revenues of the postal licence holder; and

| (f) | Decree No 466/2012 Coll., on the method of the CTO in calculating the net costs of fulfilling the obligation to provide universal services. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Decree No 466/2012 Coll., on the method of the CTO in calculating the net costs of fulfilling the obligation to provide universal services.

2.3.   Databoxes Information System (‘DBIS’)

| (25) | Czech Post is also entrusted with the provision of the data boxes information system (‘DBIS’) over the 2018-2022 period. On 2 February 2018, the Commission adopted a decision (10) concluding that compensation for the amount of CZK 2,3 billion (EUR 85,1 million) to be granted to Czech Post for the delivery of DBIS over the period 2018-2022 constitutes State aid compatible with the internal market under the 2012 SGEI Framework (11). |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Czech Post is also entrusted with the provision of the data boxes information system (‘DBIS’) over the 2018-2022 period. On 2 February 2018, the Commission adopted a decision (10) concluding that compensation for the amount of CZK 2,3 billion (EUR 85,1 million) to be granted to Czech Post for the delivery of DBIS over the period 2018-2022 constitutes State aid compatible with the internal market under the 2012 SGEI Framework (11).

| (26) | DBIS is an electronic channel for internal communication within the public administration and for secured communication between the public administration and citizens and companies, which, in some cases, replaces conventional postal services such as registered post. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

DBIS is an electronic channel for internal communication within the public administration and for secured communication between the public administration and citizens and companies, which, in some cases, replaces conventional postal services such as registered post.

2.4.   The notified measure and the compensation mechanism for the USO

2.4.1.   Scope of the notification and amount of compensation

| (27) | The notified measure concerns the public financing for the provision by Czech Post of the USO as defined by the Czech authorities (see recital 22) over the period 2018-2022, to be granted on the basis of the Postal Services Act. Pursuant to Article 34e(3) of the Postal Services Act, the CTO may not transfer funds to pay for preliminary net costs or net costs representing an unfair financial burden until the Commission has taken a decision on the compatibility of the compensation with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The notified measure concerns the public financing for the provision by Czech Post of the USO as defined by the Czech authorities (see recital 22) over the period 2018-2022, to be granted on the basis of the Postal Services Act. Pursuant to Article 34e(3) of the Postal Services Act, the CTO may not transfer funds to pay for preliminary net costs or net costs representing an unfair financial burden until the Commission has taken a decision on the compatibility of the compensation with the internal market.

| (28) | The compensation to be granted to Czech Post will depend on the net costs of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, as verified by the CTO, and is limited to a maximum amount of CZK 1 500 million (EUR 55,5 million (12)) each year (see recital 33). |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The compensation to be granted to Czech Post will depend on the net costs of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, as verified by the CTO, and is limited to a maximum amount of CZK 1 500 million (EUR 55,5 million (12)) each year (see recital 33).

2.4.2.   Procedure to establish the amount to be granted as compensation

| (29) | Pursuant to Section 34c of the Postal Services Act, the level of the USO compensation for each year is not set in advance, but is calculated and paid annually in three steps. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Pursuant to Section 34c of the Postal Services Act, the level of the USO compensation for each year is not set in advance, but is calculated and paid annually in three steps.

Step 1: Reimbursement of the provisional nets costs in year t (equal to 50 % of the net costs in year t-1)

| (30) | For the provisional net costs incurred in a given year, Czech Post may submit a request for reimbursement to the CTO from 1 July until 31 December of that year (year t), in accordance with Section 34c of the Postal Services Act. In such cases, the CTO will issue a decision establishing the provisional net costs as equal to 50 % of the net costs calculated (using the method described in Section 8.2.8) for the preceding year (year t-1) for which the amount has been verified. Within 30 days from the date on which the decision becomes final, Czechia will reimburse Czech Post in respect of the provisional net costs via the CTO. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

For the provisional net costs incurred in a given year, Czech Post may submit a request for reimbursement to the CTO from 1 July until 31 December of that year (year t), in accordance with Section 34c of the Postal Services Act. In such cases, the CTO will issue a decision establishing the provisional net costs as equal to 50 % of the net costs calculated (using the method described in Section 8.2.8) for the preceding year (year t-1) for which the amount has been verified. Within 30 days from the date on which the decision becomes final, Czechia will reimburse Czech Post in respect of the provisional net costs via the CTO.

Step 2: Reimbursement in year t+1 of the remaining nets costs incurred in year t

| (31) | For the actual net costs incurred in a given year, Czech Post may submit a request for reimbursement to the CTO by 31 August of the following year (year t+1), in accordance with Section 34d of the Postal Services Act. The CTO will perform the verification of the net cost calculated by Czech Post using the NAC methodology. The CTO will establish, by means of a decision, the net costs equating to the amount of the net costs verified in accordance with Section 34b of the Postal Services Act. For reimbursing net costs, the CTO will deduct the provisional net costs already reimbursed to Czech Post. If the provisional net costs paid are higher than the net costs incurred in a given year, Czech Post will reimburse the difference to the State. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

For the actual net costs incurred in a given year, Czech Post may submit a request for reimbursement to the CTO by 31 August of the following year (year t+1), in accordance with Section 34d of the Postal Services Act. The CTO will perform the verification of the net cost calculated by Czech Post using the NAC methodology. The CTO will establish, by means of a decision, the net costs equating to the amount of the net costs verified in accordance with Section 34b of the Postal Services Act. For reimbursing net costs, the CTO will deduct the provisional net costs already reimbursed to Czech Post. If the provisional net costs paid are higher than the net costs incurred in a given year, Czech Post will reimburse the difference to the State.

| (32) | The CTO verifies the origin and amount of the net costs in the manner specified in Section 34b of the Postal Services Act. If following this verification it results that the net cost calculation is correct, Czech Post will be legally entitled to the reimbursement of the net costs. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The CTO verifies the origin and amount of the net costs in the manner specified in Section 34b of the Postal Services Act. If following this verification it results that the net cost calculation is correct, Czech Post will be legally entitled to the reimbursement of the net costs.

Step 3: The reimbursement cannot exceed CZK 1 500 million for each year

| (33) | The CTO verifies the net cost of the USO as defined by the Czech authorities in accordance with Section 34b of the Postal Services Act. The net cost is reimbursed up to the maximum amount of CZK 1 500 million for each year, in accordance with Section 34d of the Postal Services Act, based on the analysis of the unfair burden of the USO. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The CTO verifies the net cost of the USO as defined by the Czech authorities in accordance with Section 34b of the Postal Services Act. The net cost is reimbursed up to the maximum amount of CZK 1 500 million for each year, in accordance with Section 34d of the Postal Services Act, based on the analysis of the unfair burden of the USO.

3.   COMPLAINTS

3.1.   Zàsilkovna’s complaint

| (34) | Zàsilkovna, a competitor of Czech Post active in the parcel delivery market, contends that Czech Post has benefited from unlawful aid since ‘at least’ 2013. The complaint lodged by Zàsilkovna is summarised below. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Zàsilkovna, a competitor of Czech Post active in the parcel delivery market, contends that Czech Post has benefited from unlawful aid since ‘at least’ 2013. The complaint lodged by Zàsilkovna is summarised below.

| (35) | Zàsilkovna considers that the entrustment act is not in line with the SGEI Framework, because the method to determine the amount of compensation for Czech Post is not objective and transparent. Zàsilkovna argues that neither the Czech authorities nor Czech Post has explained or published any details about the net cost calculation on the basis of which the amount of compensation was determined. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Zàsilkovna considers that the entrustment act is not in line with the SGEI Framework, because the method to determine the amount of compensation for Czech Post is not objective and transparent. Zàsilkovna argues that neither the Czech authorities nor Czech Post has explained or published any details about the net cost calculation on the basis of which the amount of compensation was determined.

| (36) | Zàsilkovna also considers that Czech Post has received excessive financial resources as compensation for the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, from 2013 to 2017, and that this will be ‘all the more so’ the case for the 2018-2022 period. In that respect, Zàsilkovna points out that the annual unfair burden limit for the period 2018-2022 has increased threefold, to CZK 1 500 million, compared to the amount accepted in the Commission decision covering USO compensation for the 2013-2017 period (the ‘2018 USO Decision’) (13). Zàsilkovna considers that Czech Post uses that excessive compensation to cross-subsidise its non-USO services, notably on the parcel market (14). |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Zàsilkovna also considers that Czech Post has received excessive financial resources as compensation for the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, from 2013 to 2017, and that this will be ‘all the more so’ the case for the 2018-2022 period. In that respect, Zàsilkovna points out that the annual unfair burden limit for the period 2018-2022 has increased threefold, to CZK 1 500 million, compared to the amount accepted in the Commission decision covering USO compensation for the 2013-2017 period (the ‘2018 USO Decision’) (13). Zàsilkovna considers that Czech Post uses that excessive compensation to cross-subsidise its non-USO services, notably on the parcel market (14).

| (37) | In particular, Zàsilkovna considers that Czech Post receives excessive compensation because it allocates the full cost of its delivery and transportation network to the USO, and it therefore does not properly attribute a share of those costs to its ‘Balíkovna’ service (the delivery of parcels to pick-up outlets other than post offices) and hence cross-subsidises this service from its allegedly excessive USO compensation. According to Zàsilkovna, the Balíkovna service is offered ‘substantially below cost’. Zàsilkovna seems to consider that Czech Post has misallocated costs since at least 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

In particular, Zàsilkovna considers that Czech Post receives excessive compensation because it allocates the full cost of its delivery and transportation network to the USO, and it therefore does not properly attribute a share of those costs to its ‘Balíkovna’ service (the delivery of parcels to pick-up outlets other than post offices) and hence cross-subsidises this service from its allegedly excessive USO compensation. According to Zàsilkovna, the Balíkovna service is offered ‘substantially below cost’. Zàsilkovna seems to consider that Czech Post has misallocated costs since at least 2013.

| (38) | Zàsilkovna substantiates its argument concerning Balíkovna’s prices by reference to its own prices and those of other private competitors for the delivery of parcels to pick-up points (which are all, allegedly, higher). In addition, Zàsilkovna notes that the prices for Czech Post’s parcel deliveries to post offices, a service that according to Zàsilkovna is very similar to Balíkovna’s service because they both have a high amount of common costs and the same level of process efficiency, are between two and three times higher. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

Zàsilkovna substantiates its argument concerning Balíkovna’s prices by reference to its own prices and those of other private competitors for the delivery of parcels to pick-up points (which are all, allegedly, higher). In addition, Zàsilkovna notes that the prices for Czech Post’s parcel deliveries to post offices, a service that according to Zàsilkovna is very similar to Balíkovna’s service because they both have a high amount of common costs and the same level of process efficiency, are between two and three times higher.

3.2.   PNS’s complaint

| (39) | PNS alleges that Czech Post will be overcompensated for the provision of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. PNS claims that the counterfactual scenario of the NAC is not credible, as the reduction in the number of post offices would have a significant influence on the revenues generated by Czech Post from non-USO services. PNS claims that the counterfactual scenario would involve the loss of all revenues generated through non-USO services, amounting to CZK 4,25 billion (EUR 157,3 million) annually, which is allegedly not properly accounted for by the calculations of the Czech authorities and Czech Post. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

PNS alleges that Czech Post will be overcompensated for the provision of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. PNS claims that the counterfactual scenario of the NAC is not credible, as the reduction in the number of post offices would have a significant influence on the revenues generated by Czech Post from non-USO services. PNS claims that the counterfactual scenario would involve the loss of all revenues generated through non-USO services, amounting to CZK 4,25 billion (EUR 157,3 million) annually, which is allegedly not properly accounted for by the calculations of the Czech authorities and Czech Post.

| (40) | PNS also alleges that Czech Post has wrongly categorised certain services as non-USO services and by so doing has artificially lowered the revenues generated by the USO. This leads, according to PNS, to an artificially higher net cost to be compensated. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

PNS also alleges that Czech Post has wrongly categorised certain services as non-USO services and by so doing has artificially lowered the revenues generated by the USO. This leads, according to PNS, to an artificially higher net cost to be compensated.

| (41) | PNS also notes in that respect that the Postal Services Act has been amended to significantly increase the limits for net cost compensation to CZK 1 500 million (EUR 55,5 million) per year, from CZK 500 million (EUR 18,5 million) per year originally. PNS points out that, in the 2018 USO Decision, the Czech authorities had estimated the net cost of the USO at maximum CZK 984 million (EUR 36,4 million) per year, significantly below that increased ceiling. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

PNS also notes in that respect that the Postal Services Act has been amended to significantly increase the limits for net cost compensation to CZK 1 500 million (EUR 55,5 million) per year, from CZK 500 million (EUR 18,5 million) per year originally. PNS points out that, in the 2018 USO Decision, the Czech authorities had estimated the net cost of the USO at maximum CZK 984 million (EUR 36,4 million) per year, significantly below that increased ceiling.

| (42) | PNS also considers that Czech Post has violated the transparency requirements set out in Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (15), and in particular Annex 1, part C, subparagraph 1, thereto as well as Article 7(5) thereof, by publishing only the amount of the compensation, and not the calculations of the NAC. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

PNS also considers that Czech Post has violated the transparency requirements set out in Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (15), and in particular Annex 1, part C, subparagraph 1, thereto as well as Article 7(5) thereof, by publishing only the amount of the compensation, and not the calculations of the NAC.

| (43) | PNS claims that the calculation of Czech Post’s net costs is not in line with Annex 1, Part B, subparagraph 5, to Directive 97/67/EC. The latter provides that ‘the calculation is to be based on the costs attributable to elements of the identified services which can only be provided at a loss or provided under cost conditions falling outside normal commercial standards’. PNS also considers that Czech Post violates Section 33 of the Postal Services Act, which obliges it to offer services within the scope of the universal service at cost-oriented prices. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

PNS claims that the calculation of Czech Post’s net costs is not in line with Annex 1, Part B, subparagraph 5, to Directive 97/67/EC. The latter provides that ‘the calculation is to be based on the costs attributable to elements of the identified services which can only be provided at a loss or provided under cost conditions falling outside normal commercial standards’. PNS also considers that Czech Post violates Section 33 of the Postal Services Act, which obliges it to offer services within the scope of the universal service at cost-oriented prices.

| (44) | PNS claims that Czech Post offers ‘immense’ discounts of up to 60 % to large senders, leading to ‘extraordinarily’ low prices, below cost. According to PNS, this is the result of Czech Post’s own pricing policy and should not be understood as falling outside normal commercial standards within the meaning of Directive 97/67/EC, i.e. the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, does not oblige Czech Post to charge prices below cost. The calculation of Czech Post’s compensation therefore cannot take any losses resulting from that practice into account. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

PNS claims that Czech Post offers ‘immense’ discounts of up to 60 % to large senders, leading to ‘extraordinarily’ low prices, below cost. According to PNS, this is the result of Czech Post’s own pricing policy and should not be understood as falling outside normal commercial standards within the meaning of Directive 97/67/EC, i.e. the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, does not oblige Czech Post to charge prices below cost. The calculation of Czech Post’s compensation therefore cannot take any losses resulting from that practice into account.

| (45) | To support this argument, PNS has provided another example and notes that prices for hybrid post (16) have increased by almost 20 % in 2019, meaning, in the view of PNS, that either the new price is too high and exceeds a reasonable profit margin or the previous, lower, price was not cost-oriented as it would have been too low to cover costs. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

To support this argument, PNS has provided another example and notes that prices for hybrid post (16) have increased by almost 20 % in 2019, meaning, in the view of PNS, that either the new price is too high and exceeds a reasonable profit margin or the previous, lower, price was not cost-oriented as it would have been too low to cover costs.

4.   GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

| (46) | On 23 June 2020, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure regarding the USO compensation for Czech Post for 2018-2022 due to its doubts as to the compatibility with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

On 23 June 2020, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure regarding the USO compensation for Czech Post for 2018-2022 due to its doubts as to the compatibility with the internal market.

| (47) | In the opening decision, the Commission first expressed its doubts on the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. Indeed, the USO entrusted to Czech Post, as described in recital 22, is wider than the services described in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. In particular, the Commission noted that the USO includes postal money orders, which are not listed in that Article and are referred to in Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (17) as additional or complementary services. In addition, the Commission considered that the public was not specifically consulted on the inclusion of postal money orders in the scope of the USO for the notified period. As a result, it concluded that that there were doubts that the USO as defined by Czechia in the Postal Services Act (or at least that post money orders) could qualify as a genuine SGEI. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

In the opening decision, the Commission first expressed its doubts on the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. Indeed, the USO entrusted to Czech Post, as described in recital 22, is wider than the services described in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. In particular, the Commission noted that the USO includes postal money orders, which are not listed in that Article and are referred to in Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (17) as additional or complementary services. In addition, the Commission considered that the public was not specifically consulted on the inclusion of postal money orders in the scope of the USO for the notified period. As a result, it concluded that that there were doubts that the USO as defined by Czechia in the Postal Services Act (or at least that post money orders) could qualify as a genuine SGEI.

| (48) | Second, and related to the doubts on the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, the Commission also expressed doubts as to the compliance with EU public procurement rules as regards the direct award of the USO. Indeed, designating a USO provider under Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC is possible if the scope of the activities carried out by the USO provider can be considered a universal service as defined in Article 3 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

Second, and related to the doubts on the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, the Commission also expressed doubts as to the compliance with EU public procurement rules as regards the direct award of the USO. Indeed, designating a USO provider under Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC is possible if the scope of the activities carried out by the USO provider can be considered a universal service as defined in Article 3 of that Directive.

| (49) | Third, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision on the amount of compensation to be granted to Czech Post. In this regard, the Commission expressed doubts as to the plausibility of the design of Czech Post’s counterfactual scenario. In particular, the Commission had doubts that Czech Post would have closed, under the counterfactual scenario, more than a 1 000 offices that it had been operating voluntarily up to the end of 2015. The Commission noted that the mere entry into force of an implementing decree in 2016 preventing the closure of certain post offices does not, in itself, render the operation of those post offices a burden and that Czech Post could have closed them at any point before the entry into force of the implementing decree, but chose not to do so. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

Third, the Commission expressed doubts in the opening decision on the amount of compensation to be granted to Czech Post. In this regard, the Commission expressed doubts as to the plausibility of the design of Czech Post’s counterfactual scenario. In particular, the Commission had doubts that Czech Post would have closed, under the counterfactual scenario, more than a 1 000 offices that it had been operating voluntarily up to the end of 2015. The Commission noted that the mere entry into force of an implementing decree in 2016 preventing the closure of certain post offices does not, in itself, render the operation of those post offices a burden and that Czech Post could have closed them at any point before the entry into force of the implementing decree, but chose not to do so.

| (50) | In addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to the quantification of the impact of the changes Czech Post proposed to its postal infrastructure and delivery frequency in the counterfactual scenario. As regards the quantification of the demand effect in the counterfactual scenario stemming from the reduction in infrastructure (18), the Czech authorities carried out a survey which indicated among others that 29 % of respondents would stop using Czech Post for financial services if the post office they were currently using would close, while postal services would also be strongly affected since 20 % of respondents would stop using Czech Post to send registered letters. Even though the demand responses from the surveys should not necessarily lead to corresponding decreases in demand, according to the Czech authorities, in the counterfactual scenario, revenues from non-USO services would decrease by only 4 %, whereas demand for registered letters would decrease by only 1,1 %. In light of the above, the Commission expressed doubts that the demand effects of post office closures have been quantified correctly. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

In addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to the quantification of the impact of the changes Czech Post proposed to its postal infrastructure and delivery frequency in the counterfactual scenario. As regards the quantification of the demand effect in the counterfactual scenario stemming from the reduction in infrastructure (18), the Czech authorities carried out a survey which indicated among others that 29 % of respondents would stop using Czech Post for financial services if the post office they were currently using would close, while postal services would also be strongly affected since 20 % of respondents would stop using Czech Post to send registered letters. Even though the demand responses from the surveys should not necessarily lead to corresponding decreases in demand, according to the Czech authorities, in the counterfactual scenario, revenues from non-USO services would decrease by only 4 %, whereas demand for registered letters would decrease by only 1,1 %. In light of the above, the Commission expressed doubts that the demand effects of post office closures have been quantified correctly.

| (51) | As regards the quantification of the demand effect in the counterfactual scenario stemming from the reduction in delivery frequency (19), the Czech authorities carried out another survey asking a sample of 1 002 citizens that had used Czech Post to send letters in the past six months, whether they would consider it ‘acceptable’ that letters they send would be delivered within two working days, as opposed to the next day. According to the survey, [70-95] % of respondents would consider it acceptable, [2,5-15] % of respondents would consider it unacceptable, and another [2,5-15] % would consider it neither acceptable nor unacceptable. According to the Czech authorities, as a consequence of the reduction in the delivery frequency, volumes for non-registered letters would decrease by [5-15] % in the counterfactual scenario. Considering the aforementioned, the Commission expressed doubts, firstly, that this survey permits any firm conclusions regarding the precise demand effects of reducing the delivery frequency, since whether a respondent finds a change in Czech Post’s delivery rates acceptable or not does not necessarily illustrate how demand would be affected. Secondly, the Commission was doubtful that the Czech authorities quantified that demand effect correctly, given the discrepancy between the results of the survey and the reduction in volumes. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

As regards the quantification of the demand effect in the counterfactual scenario stemming from the reduction in delivery frequency (19), the Czech authorities carried out another survey asking a sample of 1 002 citizens that had used Czech Post to send letters in the past six months, whether they would consider it ‘acceptable’ that letters they send would be delivered within two working days, as opposed to the next day. According to the survey, [70-95] % of respondents would consider it acceptable, [2,5-15] % of respondents would consider it unacceptable, and another [2,5-15] % would consider it neither acceptable nor unacceptable. According to the Czech authorities, as a consequence of the reduction in the delivery frequency, volumes for non-registered letters would decrease by [5-15] % in the counterfactual scenario. Considering the aforementioned, the Commission expressed doubts, firstly, that this survey permits any firm conclusions regarding the precise demand effects of reducing the delivery frequency, since whether a respondent finds a change in Czech Post’s delivery rates acceptable or not does not necessarily illustrate how demand would be affected. Secondly, the Commission was doubtful that the Czech authorities quantified that demand effect correctly, given the discrepancy between the results of the survey and the reduction in volumes.

| (52) | Finally, on the NAC of the USO the Commission expressed doubts that the Czech authorities correctly took into account the net cost for the provision of the DBIS. Indeed, when calculating the NAC of the USO, any double counting with the NAC calculated for the DBIS for which Czech Post has been entrusted for the same period (‘the DBIS decision’) (20) must be avoided. In the present case, the Czech authorities have calculated that the NAC (USO+DBIS) is equal to CZK 15,2 billion (EUR 562,6 million) over 2018-2022. The NAC (DBIS) is equal to CZK 5,2 billion (EUR 192,5 million) for the same period (21). This results in an NAC (USO) of CZK 10,0 billion (EUR 370,1 million). The Czech authorities conclude however that the NAC (USO) is CZK 12,3 billion (EUR 455,3 million), or an average of CZK 2,5 billion (EUR 92,5 million) per year. As a result, the Czech authorities would appear to have committed a methodological error. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

Finally, on the NAC of the USO the Commission expressed doubts that the Czech authorities correctly took into account the net cost for the provision of the DBIS. Indeed, when calculating the NAC of the USO, any double counting with the NAC calculated for the DBIS for which Czech Post has been entrusted for the same period (‘the DBIS decision’) (20) must be avoided. In the present case, the Czech authorities have calculated that the NAC (USO+DBIS) is equal to CZK 15,2 billion (EUR 562,6 million) over 2018-2022. The NAC (DBIS) is equal to CZK 5,2 billion (EUR 192,5 million) for the same period (21). This results in an NAC (USO) of CZK 10,0 billion (EUR 370,1 million). The Czech authorities conclude however that the NAC (USO) is CZK 12,3 billion (EUR 455,3 million), or an average of CZK 2,5 billion (EUR 92,5 million) per year. As a result, the Czech authorities would appear to have committed a methodological error.

| (53) | In light of the above, the Commission concluded it had doubts as to the estimation of the NAC of the USO for 2018-2022. The Commission noted that, despite the cap at CZK 7,5 billion (EUR 277,6 million), whereas the NAC has been estimated at CZK 12,3 billion, the uncertainties in the NAC were too significant to exclude that the NAC could potentially be even lower than the anticipated compensation cap and that Czech Post may potentially be overcompensated for the USO. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

In light of the above, the Commission concluded it had doubts as to the estimation of the NAC of the USO for 2018-2022. The Commission noted that, despite the cap at CZK 7,5 billion (EUR 277,6 million), whereas the NAC has been estimated at CZK 12,3 billion, the uncertainties in the NAC were too significant to exclude that the NAC could potentially be even lower than the anticipated compensation cap and that Czech Post may potentially be overcompensated for the USO.

| (54) | Fourth, the Commission expressed doubts on the efficiency incentive. Indeed, the maximum amount of compensation of Czech Post for the period 2018-2022 is laid down in the Postal Services Act, and that amount is fixed over the entrustment period. To the extent that Czech Post’s compensation ceiling is lower than the NAC, the Commission would consider that approach acceptable to ensure the existence of an efficiency incentive. However, taking into account the uncertainties mentioned in recital 53 above, the Commission also expressed doubts as to whether the USO complied with the efficiency incentives requirement set out in paragraph 39 of the 2012 SGEI Framework (22). |
| --- | --- |

(54)

Fourth, the Commission expressed doubts on the efficiency incentive. Indeed, the maximum amount of compensation of Czech Post for the period 2018-2022 is laid down in the Postal Services Act, and that amount is fixed over the entrustment period. To the extent that Czech Post’s compensation ceiling is lower than the NAC, the Commission would consider that approach acceptable to ensure the existence of an efficiency incentive. However, taking into account the uncertainties mentioned in recital 53 above, the Commission also expressed doubts as to whether the USO complied with the efficiency incentives requirement set out in paragraph 39 of the 2012 SGEI Framework (22).

| (55) | Fifth, the Commission expressed doubts that the transparency requirements set out in paragraph 60 of the 2012 SGEI Framework were met. Indeed, the Commission considered that the public consultation referred to in recital 47, if it had been necessary, should have been published. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Fifth, the Commission expressed doubts that the transparency requirements set out in paragraph 60 of the 2012 SGEI Framework were met. Indeed, the Commission considered that the public consultation referred to in recital 47, if it had been necessary, should have been published.

5.   COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

5.1.   Zàsilkovna

| (56) | Zàsilkovna shares the doubts that the Commission raised in the opening decision and has put forward additional comments with respect to the compatibility of the measure. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

Zàsilkovna shares the doubts that the Commission raised in the opening decision and has put forward additional comments with respect to the compatibility of the measure.

| (57) | In particular, Zàsilkovna takes the view that the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, or at least the parcel-delivery services, can be performed by private operators as is the case in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden on a commercial basis without any State aid. To this end, it argues that the current market conditions do not correspond to a market failure for the provision of the USO on a commercial basis and thus that the USO cannot be regarded as a genuine SGEI. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

In particular, Zàsilkovna takes the view that the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, or at least the parcel-delivery services, can be performed by private operators as is the case in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden on a commercial basis without any State aid. To this end, it argues that the current market conditions do not correspond to a market failure for the provision of the USO on a commercial basis and thus that the USO cannot be regarded as a genuine SGEI.

| (58) | Zàsilkovna explains that its postal parcel network meets the requirement of at least 3 200 post offices as laid down in Government Order N.178/2015 Coll. It also explains that its postal network meets all basic quality criteria to ensure sufficient availability and the vast majority of criteria to ensure sufficient density. Zàsilkovna’s postal network could very quickly fulfil also the remaining criteria to qualify as a nationwide postal network required for the provision of the USO as laid down in Decree No 464/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

Zàsilkovna explains that its postal parcel network meets the requirement of at least 3 200 post offices as laid down in Government Order N.178/2015 Coll. It also explains that its postal network meets all basic quality criteria to ensure sufficient availability and the vast majority of criteria to ensure sufficient density. Zàsilkovna’s postal network could very quickly fulfil also the remaining criteria to qualify as a nationwide postal network required for the provision of the USO as laid down in Decree No 464/2012.

| (59) | Zàsilkovna claims that the depreciation periods for the assets for the provision of USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, for the purposes of entrustment period are unfounded, since it is not clear: which of the assets listed in Table 1 of the opening decision are intended to be financed from the USO compensation; when they were purchased or when are intended to be purchased; or whether their depreciation period has lapsed. The list also lacks any substantiation as regards the necessity of the assets for the provision of the USO. In Zàsilkovna’s view, such a list is completely not transparent and cannot be used as evidence. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

Zàsilkovna claims that the depreciation periods for the assets for the provision of USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, for the purposes of entrustment period are unfounded, since it is not clear: which of the assets listed in Table 1 of the opening decision are intended to be financed from the USO compensation; when they were purchased or when are intended to be purchased; or whether their depreciation period has lapsed. The list also lacks any substantiation as regards the necessity of the assets for the provision of the USO. In Zàsilkovna’s view, such a list is completely not transparent and cannot be used as evidence.

| (60) | According to Zàsilkovna, the USO compensation is not in line with the financial transparency requirements set out in the SGEI Framework. In Zàsilkovna’s view, Czech Post has already formally included part of the compensation in the 2019 annual report prior to Commission’s approval and payment of the compensation. In addition, Zàsilkovna claims that Czech Post voluntarily subsidises the below-cost prices for its non-USO services with the USO services, increases its losses and allocates them to USO activities, as defined by the Czech authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

According to Zàsilkovna, the USO compensation is not in line with the financial transparency requirements set out in the SGEI Framework. In Zàsilkovna’s view, Czech Post has already formally included part of the compensation in the 2019 annual report prior to Commission’s approval and payment of the compensation. In addition, Zàsilkovna claims that Czech Post voluntarily subsidises the below-cost prices for its non-USO services with the USO services, increases its losses and allocates them to USO activities, as defined by the Czech authorities.

| (61) | Zàsilkovna also claims that the Czech authorities infringed the public procurement rules set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, since the relevant criteria were set up by the regulator (i.e. CTO) in a discriminatory manner as they were tailor-made for Czech Post. It argues that: (i) the PMOs were intentionally included in the scope of the USO, conferring, in this way, an advantage on Czech Post, which was the only postal operator that could offer such services (i.e. infrastructure, network, special logistics, etc.); and (ii) the evaluation criteria/points were set in a manner that allowed Czech Post to collect the majority of the awarding points. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

Zàsilkovna also claims that the Czech authorities infringed the public procurement rules set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC, since the relevant criteria were set up by the regulator (i.e. CTO) in a discriminatory manner as they were tailor-made for Czech Post. It argues that: (i) the PMOs were intentionally included in the scope of the USO, conferring, in this way, an advantage on Czech Post, which was the only postal operator that could offer such services (i.e. infrastructure, network, special logistics, etc.); and (ii) the evaluation criteria/points were set in a manner that allowed Czech Post to collect the majority of the awarding points.

| (62) | According to Zàsilkovna, the notified NAC amount leads to overcompensation of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, due to several reason such as:






  (a) | Czech Post is not a well-run undertaking, since it does not precisely explain and justify all the costs which are allegedly necessary to discharge the obligations of USO in the factual scenario; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(62)

According to Zàsilkovna, the notified NAC amount leads to overcompensation of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, due to several reason such as:

(a)

Czech Post is not a well-run undertaking, since it does not precisely explain and justify all the costs which are allegedly necessary to discharge the obligations of USO in the factual scenario;

| (b) | Czech Post does not subtract from the final NAC losses, which it voluntarily achieves by providing its non-USO services at below cost prices; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Czech Post does not subtract from the final NAC losses, which it voluntarily achieves by providing its non-USO services at below cost prices;

| (c) | the closure of 67,1 % of post offices and the conversion of 14,4 % of them into Post Points, in the counterfactual scenario, is completely unrealistic and has been tailor-made to justify a pre-selected USO compensation; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the closure of 67,1 % of post offices and the conversion of 14,4 % of them into Post Points, in the counterfactual scenario, is completely unrealistic and has been tailor-made to justify a pre-selected USO compensation;

| (d) | the reduction in delivery frequency (from 5 days per week to 5 days per two weeks) assumed in the counterfactual scenario, is the actual situation for the letters already as from 2020 where CZ Post introduced the two-speed delivery which Czech Post allegedly did not consider within its counterfactual scenario when estimating the respective costs savings; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the reduction in delivery frequency (from 5 days per week to 5 days per two weeks) assumed in the counterfactual scenario, is the actual situation for the letters already as from 2020 where CZ Post introduced the two-speed delivery which Czech Post allegedly did not consider within its counterfactual scenario when estimating the respective costs savings;

| (e) | the reduction in delivery frequency would further decrease profitability of Czech Post in the counterfactual scenario and NAC; and |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the reduction in delivery frequency would further decrease profitability of Czech Post in the counterfactual scenario and NAC; and

| (f) | the methodology for the calculation of the net cost of the USO is not based on the cost allocation methodology, which allegedly would be generally more suitable, prevent cross-subsidisation and share proportionally the common costs between the SGEI and other commercial activities. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the methodology for the calculation of the net cost of the USO is not based on the cost allocation methodology, which allegedly would be generally more suitable, prevent cross-subsidisation and share proportionally the common costs between the SGEI and other commercial activities.

| (63) | Finally, Zàsilkovna is of the view that the cross-subsidisation of purely non-USO activities mentioned in recital 60 constitutes a stand-alone State aid issue which the Commission should assess separately. According to Zàsilkovna, Czech Post has been cross-subsidizing the below cost prices for its non-USO activities. Moreover, Czech Post is able to provide these services for below-cost prices by not properly sharing the costs for the infrastructure and network operation between USO and non-USO activities. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

Finally, Zàsilkovna is of the view that the cross-subsidisation of purely non-USO activities mentioned in recital 60 constitutes a stand-alone State aid issue which the Commission should assess separately. According to Zàsilkovna, Czech Post has been cross-subsidizing the below cost prices for its non-USO activities. Moreover, Czech Post is able to provide these services for below-cost prices by not properly sharing the costs for the infrastructure and network operation between USO and non-USO activities.

5.2.   PNS (former Mediaservis)

| (64) | PNS takes the view that the entrustment of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is not in line with paragraph 13 of the 2012 SGEI Framework according to which Member States cannot attach specific public service obligations to services that are already provided or can be provided satisfactorily by undertakings operating under normal market conditions. In that respect, PNS argues that there are several competitors, PNS being one of them, which are not only ready and willing to discharge the USO in Czechia, but which actually already are discharging services that are interchangeable with the services falling within the scope of the USO across the entire Czechia, which could ensure the provision of these USOs to the same extent and in the same quality as Czech Post and at much lower net cost compensation, if at any at all. |
| --- | --- |

(64)

PNS takes the view that the entrustment of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is not in line with paragraph 13 of the 2012 SGEI Framework according to which Member States cannot attach specific public service obligations to services that are already provided or can be provided satisfactorily by undertakings operating under normal market conditions. In that respect, PNS argues that there are several competitors, PNS being one of them, which are not only ready and willing to discharge the USO in Czechia, but which actually already are discharging services that are interchangeable with the services falling within the scope of the USO across the entire Czechia, which could ensure the provision of these USOs to the same extent and in the same quality as Czech Post and at much lower net cost compensation, if at any at all.

| (65) | According to PNS, PMOs go beyond the definition of the USO as set out by Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. This provision of the Postal Services Act therefore represents a direct contradiction with Directive 97/67/EC. PNS also claims that the inclusion of PMOs into the USO does not make any sense economically since PMO services could be easily provided by banks as well as other professional money institutions without any additional cost and surely cheaper than Czech Post. With respect to the NAC of the PMO, PNS considers that it must be excluded from the USO, meaning a reduction of at least CZK 200 million (approximately EUR 8 million) annually (23). |
| --- | --- |

(65)

According to PNS, PMOs go beyond the definition of the USO as set out by Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. This provision of the Postal Services Act therefore represents a direct contradiction with Directive 97/67/EC. PNS also claims that the inclusion of PMOs into the USO does not make any sense economically since PMO services could be easily provided by banks as well as other professional money institutions without any additional cost and surely cheaper than Czech Post. With respect to the NAC of the PMO, PNS considers that it must be excluded from the USO, meaning a reduction of at least CZK 200 million (approximately EUR 8 million) annually (23).

| (66) | PNS also takes the view that the entrustment of Czech Post with the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, by way of direct award violates procurement rules. In that respect, PNS argues that the tender for the USO had been discriminatory to operators other than Czech Post. In PNS’s view, PMOs were intentionally included in the scope of the USO, conferring in this way an advantage to Czech Post, being the only postal operator that could offer such services (i.e. infrastructure, network, special logistics, etc.), and the evaluation criteria/points were set in manner that allowed Czech Post to collect the majority of the awarding points. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

PNS also takes the view that the entrustment of Czech Post with the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, by way of direct award violates procurement rules. In that respect, PNS argues that the tender for the USO had been discriminatory to operators other than Czech Post. In PNS’s view, PMOs were intentionally included in the scope of the USO, conferring in this way an advantage to Czech Post, being the only postal operator that could offer such services (i.e. infrastructure, network, special logistics, etc.), and the evaluation criteria/points were set in manner that allowed Czech Post to collect the majority of the awarding points.

| (67) | According to PNS, the mere entry into force of an implementing decree in 2016 preventing the closure of certain post offices does not in itself render those post offices a burden – Czech Post could have closed them at any point before the implementing decree entered into force, yet it chose not to do so. |
| --- | --- |

(67)

According to PNS, the mere entry into force of an implementing decree in 2016 preventing the closure of certain post offices does not in itself render those post offices a burden – Czech Post could have closed them at any point before the implementing decree entered into force, yet it chose not to do so.

| (68) | According to PNS, the USO compensation is based on an unrealistic counterfactual scenario of closed postal offices, which does not reflect any standard or market-oriented behaviour of an ordinary market player, while the number of closed postal offices is chosen intentionally to support the new net cost compensation set from 2018, so that it is higher than the previous one for 2013-2017. The closure of postal offices is against the market trend since major competitors of Czech Post, such as PNS and Zásilkovna, are each operating over 3 000 postal offices without USO. |
| --- | --- |

(68)

According to PNS, the USO compensation is based on an unrealistic counterfactual scenario of closed postal offices, which does not reflect any standard or market-oriented behaviour of an ordinary market player, while the number of closed postal offices is chosen intentionally to support the new net cost compensation set from 2018, so that it is higher than the previous one for 2013-2017. The closure of postal offices is against the market trend since major competitors of Czech Post, such as PNS and Zásilkovna, are each operating over 3 000 postal offices without USO.

| (69) | According to PNS, the NAC for the USO is contrived and calculated incorrectly, without taking into account: (i) a proper quantification of the net cost stemming from the operation of offices to close in the counterfactual scenario; (ii) the savings generated by the new, less frequent delivery scheme of Czech Post; and (iii) the voluntarily losses of Czech Post’s non-USO services which must be deducted from the NAC amount. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

According to PNS, the NAC for the USO is contrived and calculated incorrectly, without taking into account: (i) a proper quantification of the net cost stemming from the operation of offices to close in the counterfactual scenario; (ii) the savings generated by the new, less frequent delivery scheme of Czech Post; and (iii) the voluntarily losses of Czech Post’s non-USO services which must be deducted from the NAC amount.

| (70) | PNS also claims that Czech Post does not separate its accounts properly, and that it wrongly allocates the costs related to non-USO services to the USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities, and then requires the compensation of such artificially increased net costs of the USO while it cross-subsidises the losses of the non-USO items. It argues that the regulator, CTO, regularly concludes that Czech Post complies with the requirements of the national law on the separation of accounts, but it does not in fact investigate whether the allocation keys are materially correct. In PNS’s view, the auditor only confirms that Czech Post has correctly inserted numbers into the prepared tables, while no material evaluation of the methodology on the separate accounts has been performed, neither by the CTO nor by an auditor, ever since the CTO has adopted this methodology of separation of accounts more than 7 years ago. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

PNS also claims that Czech Post does not separate its accounts properly, and that it wrongly allocates the costs related to non-USO services to the USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities, and then requires the compensation of such artificially increased net costs of the USO while it cross-subsidises the losses of the non-USO items. It argues that the regulator, CTO, regularly concludes that Czech Post complies with the requirements of the national law on the separation of accounts, but it does not in fact investigate whether the allocation keys are materially correct. In PNS’s view, the auditor only confirms that Czech Post has correctly inserted numbers into the prepared tables, while no material evaluation of the methodology on the separate accounts has been performed, neither by the CTO nor by an auditor, ever since the CTO has adopted this methodology of separation of accounts more than 7 years ago.

| (71) | Furthermore, PNS points out that several facts suggest that Czech Post does not discharge its USO in an efficient manner as a well-run undertaking. For instance, a non-profit organisation Hlídač státu (‘State Watchdog’), whose mission it is to shed light and transparency onto the functioning of the Czech government, and any handling of public finances, lists Czech Post in the second place in a blacklist of the allegedly least transparent entities indicating that the risk of corruption is extremely high. PNS is also of the view that Czech Post’s finances are being spent unreasonably, purposelessly and inefficiently. All expenses of this kind must be accordingly eliminated from the NAC calculation, as these costs are irrelevant for both the provision of USO and non-USO services, since they are spent unnecessarily (24). |
| --- | --- |

(71)

Furthermore, PNS points out that several facts suggest that Czech Post does not discharge its USO in an efficient manner as a well-run undertaking. For instance, a non-profit organisation Hlídač státu (‘State Watchdog’), whose mission it is to shed light and transparency onto the functioning of the Czech government, and any handling of public finances, lists Czech Post in the second place in a blacklist of the allegedly least transparent entities indicating that the risk of corruption is extremely high. PNS is also of the view that Czech Post’s finances are being spent unreasonably, purposelessly and inefficiently. All expenses of this kind must be accordingly eliminated from the NAC calculation, as these costs are irrelevant for both the provision of USO and non-USO services, since they are spent unnecessarily (24).

| (72) | Finally, PNS brings to the Commission’s attention the contract between Czech Post and the Czech Statistical Office (Český statistický úřad) regarding the 2021 census, which was awarded to Czech Post without any public tender, despite the fact that this contract is worth CZK 876 859 000 (approximately EUR 33 million). PNS urges the Commission to evaluate this contract awarded to Czech Post carefully, as the remuneration for Czech Post under that contract could actually be non-notified State Aid for Czech Post, in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

Finally, PNS brings to the Commission’s attention the contract between Czech Post and the Czech Statistical Office (Český statistický úřad) regarding the 2021 census, which was awarded to Czech Post without any public tender, despite the fact that this contract is worth CZK 876 859 000 (approximately EUR 33 million). PNS urges the Commission to evaluate this contract awarded to Czech Post carefully, as the remuneration for Czech Post under that contract could actually be non-notified State Aid for Czech Post, in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU.

5.3.   Czech Post

| (73) | Czech Post takes the view that the inclusion of the PMO in the USO was subject to a public consultation and, even if the Commission would not regard the consultation which took place as a ‘proper public consultation’, Czech Post considers that it represents ‘[another] appropriate instrument’ by way of which it was verified that the inclusion of the PMO in the USO was necessary in view of interests of the users. Czech Post considers that the public was consulted on the USO in general, including PMO, through the following instruments:






  (a) | the CTO carried out a review aimed at verifying whether the quality of the universal (basic) services corresponded to the needs of the public and whether CTO should again impose the obligation to provide the individual universal services, and whether or not (some of) the universal services would be provided even in the absence of such relevant obligations, in a manner comparable with the requirements for the universal services. As part of the review, a number of entities (25) were contacted as well as a survey in the form of a public opinion poll was commissioned; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(73)

Czech Post takes the view that the inclusion of the PMO in the USO was subject to a public consultation and, even if the Commission would not regard the consultation which took place as a ‘proper public consultation’, Czech Post considers that it represents ‘[another] appropriate instrument’ by way of which it was verified that the inclusion of the PMO in the USO was necessary in view of interests of the users. Czech Post considers that the public was consulted on the USO in general, including PMO, through the following instruments:

(a)

the CTO carried out a review aimed at verifying whether the quality of the universal (basic) services corresponded to the needs of the public and whether CTO should again impose the obligation to provide the individual universal services, and whether or not (some of) the universal services would be provided even in the absence of such relevant obligations, in a manner comparable with the requirements for the universal services. As part of the review, a number of entities (25) were contacted as well as a survey in the form of a public opinion poll was commissioned;

| (b) | the CTO subsequently consulted the public in 2016 on its intention to impose an obligation to provide the USO (including the PMO) for a period of 5 years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the CTO subsequently consulted the public in 2016 on its intention to impose an obligation to provide the USO (including the PMO) for a period of 5 years;

| (c) | in 2016, the scope of the USO was then the subject of a review, which specifically dealt with the inclusion of the PMO service in the scope of the universal service and unambiguously qualified as a public service; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

in 2016, the scope of the USO was then the subject of a review, which specifically dealt with the inclusion of the PMO service in the scope of the universal service and unambiguously qualified as a public service;

| (d) | in addition to the review of 2016, the process of enactment of the amendment to the Postal Services Act which includes the PMO also had the nature of a public consultation, where numerous consultations, working groups and bilateral negotiations were held with the entities concerned; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

in addition to the review of 2016, the process of enactment of the amendment to the Postal Services Act which includes the PMO also had the nature of a public consultation, where numerous consultations, working groups and bilateral negotiations were held with the entities concerned;

| (e) | the debate on the draft law on the Postal Services Act during the legislative process in the national Parliament is open to the public since the general public is allowed to take part in the seminar and thus has another opportunity to obtain further information and also possibly present its suggestions on the draft law on this occasion (26). |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the debate on the draft law on the Postal Services Act during the legislative process in the national Parliament is open to the public since the general public is allowed to take part in the seminar and thus has another opportunity to obtain further information and also possibly present its suggestions on the draft law on this occasion (26).

| (74) | According to Czech Post, the PMO service has a positive effect on the amount of net costs of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities (namely, it decreases the amount of those costs). The PMO service thus covers its own costs and contributes to covering the costs of other components of the USO. The provision of the PMO service by Czech Post thus requires no payments from public funds. There is therefore no need for the conditions of the SGEI Framework (including the requirement for a public consultation) to be met with regard to this service, as Czech Post receives no State aid for it. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

According to Czech Post, the PMO service has a positive effect on the amount of net costs of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities (namely, it decreases the amount of those costs). The PMO service thus covers its own costs and contributes to covering the costs of other components of the USO. The provision of the PMO service by Czech Post thus requires no payments from public funds. There is therefore no need for the conditions of the SGEI Framework (including the requirement for a public consultation) to be met with regard to this service, as Czech Post receives no State aid for it.

| (75) | Czech Post disagrees with the Commission’s assertion that imposing an additional or complementary service within the meaning of recital 30 of Directive 2008/6/EC rules out direct award pursuant to Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC since it had been properly verified that there existed a public interest in ensuring that the obligation to provide PMO services was imposed on the USO provider and, at the same time, it had been verified, through the procedure under the Postal Services Act, that Czech Post was the only entity capable of providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(75)

Czech Post disagrees with the Commission’s assertion that imposing an additional or complementary service within the meaning of recital 30 of Directive 2008/6/EC rules out direct award pursuant to Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC since it had been properly verified that there existed a public interest in ensuring that the obligation to provide PMO services was imposed on the USO provider and, at the same time, it had been verified, through the procedure under the Postal Services Act, that Czech Post was the only entity capable of providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities.

| (76) | As regards the doubts the Commission expressed on the counterfactual scenario (recital 107 of the opening decision), Czech Post submitted that, while there was no formal obligation to maintain a certain (higher) number of post offices until 2016, on the basis of the available information and political discussion of the time, there was no doubt that the theoretical option of reducing the number of post offices to 2 100 was only temporary, since Czech Post would be required by law to reopen any post offices it had closed. Such a procedure would be absolutely irrational in economic terms. Furthermore, Czech Post argues that nothing can be inferred from this in relation to the counterfactual scenario, which models a situation in which Czech Post was not bound by the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, and the closure of certain post offices was therefore not just temporary. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

As regards the doubts the Commission expressed on the counterfactual scenario (recital 107 of the opening decision), Czech Post submitted that, while there was no formal obligation to maintain a certain (higher) number of post offices until 2016, on the basis of the available information and political discussion of the time, there was no doubt that the theoretical option of reducing the number of post offices to 2 100 was only temporary, since Czech Post would be required by law to reopen any post offices it had closed. Such a procedure would be absolutely irrational in economic terms. Furthermore, Czech Post argues that nothing can be inferred from this in relation to the counterfactual scenario, which models a situation in which Czech Post was not bound by the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, and the closure of certain post offices was therefore not just temporary.

| (77) | Czech Post claims that the Commission’s doubts concerning the quantification of the demand effect of closing post offices in the counterfactual scenario is unfounded because:






  (a) | the percentage loss in revenues applied for all post offices to be closed in the counterfactual scenario was the same as for the post offices to be closed in the counterfactual scenario on which the 2018 USO Decision was based (27); and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(77)

Czech Post claims that the Commission’s doubts concerning the quantification of the demand effect of closing post offices in the counterfactual scenario is unfounded because:

(a)

the percentage loss in revenues applied for all post offices to be closed in the counterfactual scenario was the same as for the post offices to be closed in the counterfactual scenario on which the 2018 USO Decision was based (27); and

| (b) | the percentage decrease in demand on the whole is smaller, given the much higher revenue attained at the post offices and depots to be maintained. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the percentage decrease in demand on the whole is smaller, given the much higher revenue attained at the post offices and depots to be maintained.

| (78) | Czech Post also claims that the Commission’s doubts concerning the quantification of demand effect of reducing the delivery frequency in the counterfactual scenario is unfounded for two reasons. First, from the customer’s point of view, it is only a matter of a reduced likelihood that their consignment will be delivered the next day, where, as in the vast majority of cases, the customers would not notice the change in the manner of delivery unless they were explicitly advised about it. Second, the counterfactual scenario assumes that no other adequate substitute product (28) is offered for postal consignments with a guaranteed time of delivery, which could contribute to corresponding revenue losses. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

Czech Post also claims that the Commission’s doubts concerning the quantification of demand effect of reducing the delivery frequency in the counterfactual scenario is unfounded for two reasons. First, from the customer’s point of view, it is only a matter of a reduced likelihood that their consignment will be delivered the next day, where, as in the vast majority of cases, the customers would not notice the change in the manner of delivery unless they were explicitly advised about it. Second, the counterfactual scenario assumes that no other adequate substitute product (28) is offered for postal consignments with a guaranteed time of delivery, which could contribute to corresponding revenue losses.

| (79) | Czech Post is of the view that it is, by far, not compensated for the total costs of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, and thus constantly motivated to increase the efficiency of the USO services. |
| --- | --- |

(79)

Czech Post is of the view that it is, by far, not compensated for the total costs of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, and thus constantly motivated to increase the efficiency of the USO services.

| (80) | Finally, Czech Post claims that paragraph 60 of the SGEI Framework concerning transparency requirements was also complied with. To this end, Czech Post argues that: (i) the results of the CTO Review of 2016 (29) and the public consultation organised by the CTO in 2016 were published on the CTO’s website (30); (ii) the results of the public consultations carried out within the preparation and enactment of the Amendment to the Postal Services Act in 2011 and 2012 are published, as part of the explanatory memorandum on the amendment (31), in the eKLEP library for the public (32) and on the website of the Chamber of Deputies; and (iii) the results of the individual stages of the legislative process are available, together with the stenographic records of each of the sessions of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate where the draft Amendment to the Postal Services Act was discussed (33). |
| --- | --- |

(80)

Finally, Czech Post claims that paragraph 60 of the SGEI Framework concerning transparency requirements was also complied with. To this end, Czech Post argues that: (i) the results of the CTO Review of 2016 (29) and the public consultation organised by the CTO in 2016 were published on the CTO’s website (30); (ii) the results of the public consultations carried out within the preparation and enactment of the Amendment to the Postal Services Act in 2011 and 2012 are published, as part of the explanatory memorandum on the amendment (31), in the eKLEP library for the public (32) and on the website of the Chamber of Deputies; and (iii) the results of the individual stages of the legislative process are available, together with the stenographic records of each of the sessions of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate where the draft Amendment to the Postal Services Act was discussed (33).

6.   COMMENTS FROM CZECHIA

6.1.   Czechia’s comments on the opening decision

| (81) | The Czech authorities take the view that the PMO service qualifies as an SGEI and therefore should be included in the scope of the USO. First, they consider that there are no services similar to the PMO provided on a commercial basis (34). Second, the PMO has the nature of a public service in the interest of satisfying the needs of the public (especially vulnerable groups of the population). Third, the scope of the USO was the subject of discussions and consultations with the general public and interested parties when preparing the amendment to the Postal Services Act in 2012. Lastly, the intention to impose the USO, including the PMO, for the 2018-2022 period was based on the conclusions drawn from an extensive review of the quality and manner of providing and assuring the USO and its general availability in the territory of Czechia, conducted by the regulator, CTO. The review concluded that both the postal services and PMO services included in the scope of the USO could not be provided by the market. |
| --- | --- |

(81)

The Czech authorities take the view that the PMO service qualifies as an SGEI and therefore should be included in the scope of the USO. First, they consider that there are no services similar to the PMO provided on a commercial basis (34). Second, the PMO has the nature of a public service in the interest of satisfying the needs of the public (especially vulnerable groups of the population). Third, the scope of the USO was the subject of discussions and consultations with the general public and interested parties when preparing the amendment to the Postal Services Act in 2012. Lastly, the intention to impose the USO, including the PMO, for the 2018-2022 period was based on the conclusions drawn from an extensive review of the quality and manner of providing and assuring the USO and its general availability in the territory of Czechia, conducted by the regulator, CTO. The review concluded that both the postal services and PMO services included in the scope of the USO could not be provided by the market.

| (82) | The Czech authorities explain that the obligation to provide and arrange for the USO is imposed under Section 22 of the Postal Services Act on the basis of a tendering procedure. The conditions of this tendering procedure were set so that any party interested in providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, could participate and that the applicable requirements for transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination would be complied with. Prior to the announcement of the tendering procedure, the CTO had been informally advised that several operators would be interested in participating; however, only one candidate eventually registered for the tendering procedure – Czech Post. Due to non-compliance with one of the conditions for participating in the tendering procedure, its application was dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

(82)

The Czech authorities explain that the obligation to provide and arrange for the USO is imposed under Section 22 of the Postal Services Act on the basis of a tendering procedure. The conditions of this tendering procedure were set so that any party interested in providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, could participate and that the applicable requirements for transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination would be complied with. Prior to the announcement of the tendering procedure, the CTO had been informally advised that several operators would be interested in participating; however, only one candidate eventually registered for the tendering procedure – Czech Post. Due to non-compliance with one of the conditions for participating in the tendering procedure, its application was dismissed.

| (83) | With a view to ensuring continuous provision of the USO in line with the applicable quality requirements throughout the territory of Czechia, the Czech authorities imposed the USO on Czech Post as it best met the evaluation criteria. In doing so, the Czech authorities applied the procedure laid down in Section 22(9) of the Postal Services Act stipulating that the CTO may impose, by virtue of a decision on granting a postal licence, the obligation to provide and arrange for the universal services set out in the announcement of the tendering procedure on the operator who best meets the evaluation criteria. For this reason, the CTO initiated ex officio administrative proceedings with Czech Post on granting a postal licence for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022, as Czech Post best met the criteria set out in the announcement of the tendering procedure. Considering the aforementioned in recitals 81 and 82, in the Czech authorities’ view, all applicable requirements for transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination were complied with in the process of imposing the obligation to provide the USO, as they follow from Directive 97/67/EC and the public procurement rules, thus also meeting the requirements of paragraph 19 of the SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(83)

With a view to ensuring continuous provision of the USO in line with the applicable quality requirements throughout the territory of Czechia, the Czech authorities imposed the USO on Czech Post as it best met the evaluation criteria. In doing so, the Czech authorities applied the procedure laid down in Section 22(9) of the Postal Services Act stipulating that the CTO may impose, by virtue of a decision on granting a postal licence, the obligation to provide and arrange for the universal services set out in the announcement of the tendering procedure on the operator who best meets the evaluation criteria. For this reason, the CTO initiated ex officio administrative proceedings with Czech Post on granting a postal licence for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022, as Czech Post best met the criteria set out in the announcement of the tendering procedure. Considering the aforementioned in recitals 81 and 82, in the Czech authorities’ view, all applicable requirements for transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination were complied with in the process of imposing the obligation to provide the USO, as they follow from Directive 97/67/EC and the public procurement rules, thus also meeting the requirements of paragraph 19 of the SGEI Framework.

| (84) | As regards the plausibility of the counterfactual scenario, the Czech authorities clarify that, in that scenario, reception and delivery of registered letters and parcels will be offered not only in post offices but also in PostPoints along with delivery of express parcels currently falling outside the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, (e.g. the services Balík Do ruky, Balík Na poštu, Balík Do balíkovny) as well as in Balíkovna network (i.e. a network of pick-up points offering only one service - ‘Parcel to a Parcel Pick-up Outlet’, in Czech ‘Balík do Balíkovny’) by adding third-party branches and thereby creating an external network of pick-up points operated similarly to that used by the competitors on the Czech parcel market. Czech Post will thus offer postal services in PostPoints and the Balíkovna network, but will not offer commercial non-postal services (e.g. bank services, sale of lottery tickets) at these points. Finally, the Czech authorities explain that what the other providers consider as ‘post offices’ in their own branch networks, are just sales points (e.g. newspaper stands) and pick-up points (third party commission-based service points) that cannot be regarded equivalent to post offices within the meaning of Postal Services Act as they do not meet the relevant requirements to offer the full range of USO services. Czech Post’s post offices offer more services and are thus more costly than the sales points and pick-up points of the competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

As regards the plausibility of the counterfactual scenario, the Czech authorities clarify that, in that scenario, reception and delivery of registered letters and parcels will be offered not only in post offices but also in PostPoints along with delivery of express parcels currently falling outside the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, (e.g. the services Balík Do ruky, Balík Na poštu, Balík Do balíkovny) as well as in Balíkovna network (i.e. a network of pick-up points offering only one service - ‘Parcel to a Parcel Pick-up Outlet’, in Czech ‘Balík do Balíkovny’) by adding third-party branches and thereby creating an external network of pick-up points operated similarly to that used by the competitors on the Czech parcel market. Czech Post will thus offer postal services in PostPoints and the Balíkovna network, but will not offer commercial non-postal services (e.g. bank services, sale of lottery tickets) at these points. Finally, the Czech authorities explain that what the other providers consider as ‘post offices’ in their own branch networks, are just sales points (e.g. newspaper stands) and pick-up points (third party commission-based service points) that cannot be regarded equivalent to post offices within the meaning of Postal Services Act as they do not meet the relevant requirements to offer the full range of USO services. Czech Post’s post offices offer more services and are thus more costly than the sales points and pick-up points of the competitors.

| (85) | According to the Czech authorities, the obligation to ensure the availability of the USO at a minimum of 3 200 post offices was already imposed before the designation of the universal service provider for the notified period (2018-2022). This obligation would apply to any designated Universal Service Provider in Czechia. For this reason, the Czech authorities consider the number of post offices where Czech Post offered its services in the 2013-2015 period irrelevant to the assessment of the plausibility of the counterfactual scenario as regards the closure of post offices. However, the Czech authorities explain that it made sense economically for Czech Post to maintain voluntarily 1 118 (non-mandatory) loss-making post offices for the 2013-2015 period, since it was known in advance at the time that that these offices would re-open in 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

According to the Czech authorities, the obligation to ensure the availability of the USO at a minimum of 3 200 post offices was already imposed before the designation of the universal service provider for the notified period (2018-2022). This obligation would apply to any designated Universal Service Provider in Czechia. For this reason, the Czech authorities consider the number of post offices where Czech Post offered its services in the 2013-2015 period irrelevant to the assessment of the plausibility of the counterfactual scenario as regards the closure of post offices. However, the Czech authorities explain that it made sense economically for Czech Post to maintain voluntarily 1 118 (non-mandatory) loss-making post offices for the 2013-2015 period, since it was known in advance at the time that that these offices would re-open in 2016.

| (86) | The Czech authorities also explain that, on the basis of the financial data, the estimated revenue losses due to the closure of the post offices in the counterfactual scenario would be limited since the closed offices generate only a small fraction ([15-35] %) of the total revenues generated by the entire postal network while some of the revenues from the post offices to be closed would be transferred to Postpoints. The revenue loss is inferred not only from the results of a relevant survey, but also from other facts, such as the distance to the nearest post office and availability of a similar service on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(86)

The Czech authorities also explain that, on the basis of the financial data, the estimated revenue losses due to the closure of the post offices in the counterfactual scenario would be limited since the closed offices generate only a small fraction ([15-35] %) of the total revenues generated by the entire postal network while some of the revenues from the post offices to be closed would be transferred to Postpoints. The revenue loss is inferred not only from the results of a relevant survey, but also from other facts, such as the distance to the nearest post office and availability of a similar service on the market.

| (87) | With regard to the doubts expressed by the Commission on the use of the survey results for the quantification of the demand effect of the downsizing of the post office network in the counterfactual scenario, the Czech authorities explained that they took into account the survey results (35) indicating that 23 % of respondents would stop using Czech Post for financial services not falling within the scope of the USO as defined by the Czech authorities if the post office they are currently using were to close. This percentage of loss of demand was applied only to the revenues from financial services realised only on closed post offices in the counterfactual scenario (not to all revenues from financial services realised on all post offices provided by Czech Post). However, financial services are only a marginal business activity of Czech Post, since the income from financial services represents less than [5-20] % of Czech Post's total income. Therefore, the respective loss of demand in the counterfactual scenario would also be marginal. The lost demand of registered letters was calculated in the same way. Since approximately only [20-45] % of registered letters are sent by customers from post offices, a rather limited loss of demand would be expected in the counterfactual scenario in that respect. |
| --- | --- |

(87)

With regard to the doubts expressed by the Commission on the use of the survey results for the quantification of the demand effect of the downsizing of the post office network in the counterfactual scenario, the Czech authorities explained that they took into account the survey results (35) indicating that 23 % of respondents would stop using Czech Post for financial services not falling within the scope of the USO as defined by the Czech authorities if the post office they are currently using were to close. This percentage of loss of demand was applied only to the revenues from financial services realised only on closed post offices in the counterfactual scenario (not to all revenues from financial services realised on all post offices provided by Czech Post). However, financial services are only a marginal business activity of Czech Post, since the income from financial services represents less than [5-20] % of Czech Post's total income. Therefore, the respective loss of demand in the counterfactual scenario would also be marginal. The lost demand of registered letters was calculated in the same way. Since approximately only [20-45] % of registered letters are sent by customers from post offices, a rather limited loss of demand would be expected in the counterfactual scenario in that respect.

| (88) | With regard to the quantification of the remaining demand migrated from the closed offices to the remaining ones in the counterfactual scenario, the Czech authorities explained that they did not assume that the remaining demand of the closed offices would be the same in percentage terms for all closed offices and for all kind of postal services (i.e. irrespective of the proximity to the remaining post office and presence of competition). In particular, the percentage of the loss of revenues of letters depends on the distance that customers must travel to the nearest post office (e.g. for standard letters, up to 3 km, [0,5-2] %, up to 5 km, [1-3] %, up to 10 km, [2-6] % and over 10 km, [3-8] %). A different approach was applied for parcels, where the Czech authorities used a different percentage (i.e. [30-55] %) of the loss of demand regardless of distance between the closed office and the nearest remaining open post office. This approach was based on the fact that the parcel market is highly competitive in Czechia, the competitors' services are available all over the country, therefore they did not consider a different impact to demand depending on distance from nearest post office. In their view, the transfer of the remaining demand to the nearest 3 post offices most closely simulates the actual shift of customers to the remaining postal offices, based on the probability of customer movement. Finally, the Czech authorities explained that they carried out a targeted survey in order to quantify the aforementioned assumptions. |
| --- | --- |

(88)

With regard to the quantification of the remaining demand migrated from the closed offices to the remaining ones in the counterfactual scenario, the Czech authorities explained that they did not assume that the remaining demand of the closed offices would be the same in percentage terms for all closed offices and for all kind of postal services (i.e. irrespective of the proximity to the remaining post office and presence of competition). In particular, the percentage of the loss of revenues of letters depends on the distance that customers must travel to the nearest post office (e.g. for standard letters, up to 3 km, [0,5-2] %, up to 5 km, [1-3] %, up to 10 km, [2-6] % and over 10 km, [3-8] %). A different approach was applied for parcels, where the Czech authorities used a different percentage (i.e. [30-55] %) of the loss of demand regardless of distance between the closed office and the nearest remaining open post office. This approach was based on the fact that the parcel market is highly competitive in Czechia, the competitors' services are available all over the country, therefore they did not consider a different impact to demand depending on distance from nearest post office. In their view, the transfer of the remaining demand to the nearest 3 post offices most closely simulates the actual shift of customers to the remaining postal offices, based on the probability of customer movement. Finally, the Czech authorities explained that they carried out a targeted survey in order to quantify the aforementioned assumptions.

| (89) | With regard to the impact of the downsizing of the post office network in the counterfactual scenario on the overall operation of Czech Post, the Czech authorities explained that Czech Post carries out a collection from post boxes, sorting and delivery independently of postal offices. Therefore, a reduction in the number of postal offices does not cause an increase in sorting costs. |
| --- | --- |

(89)

With regard to the impact of the downsizing of the post office network in the counterfactual scenario on the overall operation of Czech Post, the Czech authorities explained that Czech Post carries out a collection from post boxes, sorting and delivery independently of postal offices. Therefore, a reduction in the number of postal offices does not cause an increase in sorting costs.

| (90) | Contrary to the Commission’s doubts expressed in recital 114 of the opening decision, the Czech authorities claim that the demand effect of the reduction in delivery frequency has been quantified correctly since the CTO took into account the offer of substitution services that could have affected the change in demand, along with the market survey mentioned in recital 113 of the opening decision (‘the market survey’). The Czech authorities explain that Czech Post changed the delivery frequency in February 2020 and offers ‘economy consignments’ with D+n (36) delivery and ‘priority consignments’ with D+1 (37) delivery. Economy consignments are CZK 7 cheaper than priority consignments (this difference applies to both standard and registered letters). Data (38) corresponding to a limited period from February to May 2020 seems to indicate that the demand effect of the reduction in delivery frequency would be rather limited in the counterfactual scenario. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

Contrary to the Commission’s doubts expressed in recital 114 of the opening decision, the Czech authorities claim that the demand effect of the reduction in delivery frequency has been quantified correctly since the CTO took into account the offer of substitution services that could have affected the change in demand, along with the market survey mentioned in recital 113 of the opening decision (‘the market survey’). The Czech authorities explain that Czech Post changed the delivery frequency in February 2020 and offers ‘economy consignments’ with D+n (36) delivery and ‘priority consignments’ with D+1 (37) delivery. Economy consignments are CZK 7 cheaper than priority consignments (this difference applies to both standard and registered letters). Data (38) corresponding to a limited period from February to May 2020 seems to indicate that the demand effect of the reduction in delivery frequency would be rather limited in the counterfactual scenario.

| (91) | Furthermore, the Czech authorities explained that they estimated the plausible additional capacity required in order for Czech Post to continue operating in the counterfactual scenario. First, they estimated how much capacity is needed to transfer from every closed post office, then they transformed the diverted volume (in work-hours) to the remaining post offices and finally they tested the new capacity of remaining post offices. The Czech authorities explained that the excessive capacity at the commercial (39) post offices relates to the USO because the demand of services is laid out across all obligatory post offices and therefore these postal offices are not fully utilised and profitable (the demand for postal services does not increase proportionally with the number of post offices, i.e. more post offices does not necessarily lead to higher revenues). The low workload on such commercial postal offices is also caused by the peaks and troughs during the opening hours. Czech Post flexibly changes the number of open counters to adapt to peaks and troughs, but there is a limitation to such adaptation due to the working hours of employees. |
| --- | --- |

(91)

Furthermore, the Czech authorities explained that they estimated the plausible additional capacity required in order for Czech Post to continue operating in the counterfactual scenario. First, they estimated how much capacity is needed to transfer from every closed post office, then they transformed the diverted volume (in work-hours) to the remaining post offices and finally they tested the new capacity of remaining post offices. The Czech authorities explained that the excessive capacity at the commercial (39) post offices relates to the USO because the demand of services is laid out across all obligatory post offices and therefore these postal offices are not fully utilised and profitable (the demand for postal services does not increase proportionally with the number of post offices, i.e. more post offices does not necessarily lead to higher revenues). The low workload on such commercial postal offices is also caused by the peaks and troughs during the opening hours. Czech Post flexibly changes the number of open counters to adapt to peaks and troughs, but there is a limitation to such adaptation due to the working hours of employees.

| (92) | As regards the Commission’s view set out in recital 115 of the opening decision that the Czech authorities may have committed a methodological error in the calculation in the NAC, the Czech authorities assume that this is a misunderstanding and maintain their view that they have considered properly the DBIS NAC in the calculation of the USO NAC. In their view, they did not deviate substantially from the calculation principles used for the 2013-2017 period, but merely redefined the counterfactual scenario to reflect the current situation on the Czech postal market. |
| --- | --- |

(92)

As regards the Commission’s view set out in recital 115 of the opening decision that the Czech authorities may have committed a methodological error in the calculation in the NAC, the Czech authorities assume that this is a misunderstanding and maintain their view that they have considered properly the DBIS NAC in the calculation of the USO NAC. In their view, they did not deviate substantially from the calculation principles used for the 2013-2017 period, but merely redefined the counterfactual scenario to reflect the current situation on the Czech postal market.

| (93) | As regards the Commission’s doubts as to whether the requirement under paragraph 39 of the SGEI Framework is met, the Czech authorities argue that setting a maximum permissible amount to cover the net costs is a common tool for ensuring efficiency of the USO provider, which is thus motivated to cut costs and improve the organisation of work with the aim of reducing the costs that will not be compensated. The Czech authorities also consider that the control of the quality (40) of the USO by the CTO can be regarded as another available instrument to exclude overcompensation and ensure efficient provision of the USO. |
| --- | --- |

(93)

As regards the Commission’s doubts as to whether the requirement under paragraph 39 of the SGEI Framework is met, the Czech authorities argue that setting a maximum permissible amount to cover the net costs is a common tool for ensuring efficiency of the USO provider, which is thus motivated to cut costs and improve the organisation of work with the aim of reducing the costs that will not be compensated. The Czech authorities also consider that the control of the quality (40) of the USO by the CTO can be regarded as another available instrument to exclude overcompensation and ensure efficient provision of the USO.

| (94) | Finally, the Czech authorities argue that scope of the USO meets the requirement for transparency set out in the SGEI Framework of 2012, since it was imposed subject to a proper consultation, as explained in recital 81 above, including publication of the results of the consultation. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

Finally, the Czech authorities argue that scope of the USO meets the requirement for transparency set out in the SGEI Framework of 2012, since it was imposed subject to a proper consultation, as explained in recital 81 above, including publication of the results of the consultation.

6.2.   Comments from Czechia on third-party comments

6.2.1.   Czechia’s comments on Zàsilkovna’s comments

| (95) | Czechia regards as unsound the line of argument by which Zásilkovna uses current data on the market situation to address conclusions made by the CTO as regards the need to impose the USO obligations on completion of the 2016 review, since the situation on the market in 2020 differs from the situation on the basis of which the USO was imposed. The decision to impose USO obligations is based on the outcome of the review carried out in 2016. In assessing the regularity of the approach taken by Czechia when deciding about the need to impose these obligations, it is necessary to evaluate the situation at the moment when such a decision was taken, not the situation as it is today. |
| --- | --- |

(95)

Czechia regards as unsound the line of argument by which Zásilkovna uses current data on the market situation to address conclusions made by the CTO as regards the need to impose the USO obligations on completion of the 2016 review, since the situation on the market in 2020 differs from the situation on the basis of which the USO was imposed. The decision to impose USO obligations is based on the outcome of the review carried out in 2016. In assessing the regularity of the approach taken by Czechia when deciding about the need to impose these obligations, it is necessary to evaluate the situation at the moment when such a decision was taken, not the situation as it is today.

| (96) | As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, should not be regarded as a genuine SGEI since it can be performed by private operators on a commercial basis without any aid, Czechia argues that, when imposing the obligation, it proceeded in line with the requirements of the Postal Services Act, which transposes Directive 97/67/EC. That procedure confirmed that the USO services remain an objective public need which should be imposed as an obligation. The intention to impose an obligation to provide the PMO service was included in the public consultation that formed part of the review and was also presented at a workshop with stakeholders organised on 5 January 2017. However, Zásilkovna made no use of its right to comment and raised no objections regarding this intention in the public consultation. |
| --- | --- |

(96)

As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, should not be regarded as a genuine SGEI since it can be performed by private operators on a commercial basis without any aid, Czechia argues that, when imposing the obligation, it proceeded in line with the requirements of the Postal Services Act, which transposes Directive 97/67/EC. That procedure confirmed that the USO services remain an objective public need which should be imposed as an obligation. The intention to impose an obligation to provide the PMO service was included in the public consultation that formed part of the review and was also presented at a workshop with stakeholders organised on 5 January 2017. However, Zásilkovna made no use of its right to comment and raised no objections regarding this intention in the public consultation.

| (97) | As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that the depreciation periods of assets for the provision of USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, for the purposes of entrustment period are unfounded, Czechia argues that the expected period of depreciation of the assets of Czech Post was submitted to the Commission for the purposes of the State aid notification for the 2018-2022 period. This overview is in line with the expected lifespan of the assets given in the Financial Part of the Annual Report of Czech Post which is verified by an auditor while the audit opinion forms part of the Annual Report. The CTO considers the assets listed as necessary for the provision of USO and regards as reasonable their assumed depreciation periods. |
| --- | --- |

(97)

As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that the depreciation periods of assets for the provision of USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, for the purposes of entrustment period are unfounded, Czechia argues that the expected period of depreciation of the assets of Czech Post was submitted to the Commission for the purposes of the State aid notification for the 2018-2022 period. This overview is in line with the expected lifespan of the assets given in the Financial Part of the Annual Report of Czech Post which is verified by an auditor while the audit opinion forms part of the Annual Report. The CTO considers the assets listed as necessary for the provision of USO and regards as reasonable their assumed depreciation periods.

| (98) | As regards Zàsilkovna’s argument on the alleged infringement of the financial transparency rules for public undertakings, Czechia argues that the accounting of estimated assets and liabilities is in line with the accounting rules applicable in Czechia while Czech Post accounts have been verified by a competent body (independent auditor). In Czechia’s view, the fact that part of the USO compensation has been recorded in the 2019 accounts does not give rise to a suspicion of infringement of the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, but rather suggests that Zásilkovna misunderstood the information stated in the Annual Report. |
| --- | --- |

(98)

As regards Zàsilkovna’s argument on the alleged infringement of the financial transparency rules for public undertakings, Czechia argues that the accounting of estimated assets and liabilities is in line with the accounting rules applicable in Czechia while Czech Post accounts have been verified by a competent body (independent auditor). In Czechia’s view, the fact that part of the USO compensation has been recorded in the 2019 accounts does not give rise to a suspicion of infringement of the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, but rather suggests that Zásilkovna misunderstood the information stated in the Annual Report.

| (99) | As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 61 that public procurement rules were infringed, Czechia argues that: (i) the tender procedure was cancelled for objective lawful reasons and in a manner provided for by law, since none of the participants fulfilled the eligibility criteria to participate in the tender; (ii) Zásilkovna did not declare its interest in participating in the tender procedure in any event; (iii) before the submission of bids, the CTO allowed all potential applicants to ask questions about the tender conditions and scope, with a view to ensuring maximum transparency and enabling everyone to obtain all necessary information to prepare their bids; and (iv) the CTO began to evaluate the bids after the deadline expired, in line with standard practice. The tender procedure was designed in a way that allowed a number of applicants to take part, even if they do not provide the full portfolio of USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities, and also allowed a number of USO licences for different USO services to be awarded to different universal service providers. There was therefore no need to guarantee the provision of all the requested universal services by a single operator. Considering the aforementioned, in Czechia’s view, the tender procedure was not discriminatory but, on the contrary, it was drawn up in a way that enabled any postal services operator to apply for being designated as the universal service provider. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 61 that public procurement rules were infringed, Czechia argues that: (i) the tender procedure was cancelled for objective lawful reasons and in a manner provided for by law, since none of the participants fulfilled the eligibility criteria to participate in the tender; (ii) Zásilkovna did not declare its interest in participating in the tender procedure in any event; (iii) before the submission of bids, the CTO allowed all potential applicants to ask questions about the tender conditions and scope, with a view to ensuring maximum transparency and enabling everyone to obtain all necessary information to prepare their bids; and (iv) the CTO began to evaluate the bids after the deadline expired, in line with standard practice. The tender procedure was designed in a way that allowed a number of applicants to take part, even if they do not provide the full portfolio of USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities, and also allowed a number of USO licences for different USO services to be awarded to different universal service providers. There was therefore no need to guarantee the provision of all the requested universal services by a single operator. Considering the aforementioned, in Czechia’s view, the tender procedure was not discriminatory but, on the contrary, it was drawn up in a way that enabled any postal services operator to apply for being designated as the universal service provider.

| (100) | As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that the counterfactual scenario is unrealistic and has been drawn up only for the purposes of creating a sufficient buffer to justify the net costs of CZK 10 billion for the 2018-2022 period, Czechia argues that: (i) the NAC methodology used for the calculation of the net costs is not at the discretion of the postal licence holder, but it is provided for by the Postal Services Act; (ii) the prices of Czech Post’s non-USO services are considered at the same level in both the factual and counterfactual scenarios and the cost-orientation obligation does not apply to them, contrary to the prices of the services part of the USO; (iii) the reimbursement of net costs is limited by the economic loss from the USO recorded in the separate accounts of costs and revenues; (iv) while only 2 108 compulsory postal offices were used for the calculation of the net costs under the factual scenario before Government Order No 178/2015 was issued, since 2016 the obligation has been extended to 3 200 postal offices, and (v) the counterfactual scenario is plausible and is quantified properly (see recitals 82 to 89) while Czech Post operates in line with the market trends. Czechia considers the existing compensation ceiling to be an effective incentive for achieving cost-efficiency while for the above reasons, the claim that the counterfactual scenario was modified to correspond to the increased limit is unjustified. |
| --- | --- |

(100)

As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that the counterfactual scenario is unrealistic and has been drawn up only for the purposes of creating a sufficient buffer to justify the net costs of CZK 10 billion for the 2018-2022 period, Czechia argues that: (i) the NAC methodology used for the calculation of the net costs is not at the discretion of the postal licence holder, but it is provided for by the Postal Services Act; (ii) the prices of Czech Post’s non-USO services are considered at the same level in both the factual and counterfactual scenarios and the cost-orientation obligation does not apply to them, contrary to the prices of the services part of the USO; (iii) the reimbursement of net costs is limited by the economic loss from the USO recorded in the separate accounts of costs and revenues; (iv) while only 2 108 compulsory postal offices were used for the calculation of the net costs under the factual scenario before Government Order No 178/2015 was issued, since 2016 the obligation has been extended to 3 200 postal offices, and (v) the counterfactual scenario is plausible and is quantified properly (see recitals 82 to 89) while Czech Post operates in line with the market trends. Czechia considers the existing compensation ceiling to be an effective incentive for achieving cost-efficiency while for the above reasons, the claim that the counterfactual scenario was modified to correspond to the increased limit is unjustified.

| (101) | As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that Czech Post overestimated the NAC by not duly taking into account in the counterfactual scenario the launch of economy-class D+n delivery, Czechia argues that this was indeed taken into account as evidenced with the detailed documentation submitted to the Commission on 18 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(101)

As regards Zàsilkovna’s claim that Czech Post overestimated the NAC by not duly taking into account in the counterfactual scenario the launch of economy-class D+n delivery, Czechia argues that this was indeed taken into account as evidenced with the detailed documentation submitted to the Commission on 18 January 2020.

| (102) | Finally, Czechia disputes Zàsilkovna’s claims that Czech Post cross-subsidises purely commercial activities by setting up 781 Balíkovna pick-up points and subsequently re-directing parcels and respective revenues from less profitable postal offices to these 781 pick-up points in order to artificially inflate the NAC and, in turn, over-compensate Czech Post. Czechia argues that this is not true since: (i) Czech Post has to look for ways of streamlining its operations and making its services more attractive to customers; and (ii) the NAC calculation takes into account properly the net costs of Balíkovna both in the factual and counterfactual scenarios, thus Balíkovna services do not result in overcompensation and there is therefore no cross subsidization of the non-USO services. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

Finally, Czechia disputes Zàsilkovna’s claims that Czech Post cross-subsidises purely commercial activities by setting up 781 Balíkovna pick-up points and subsequently re-directing parcels and respective revenues from less profitable postal offices to these 781 pick-up points in order to artificially inflate the NAC and, in turn, over-compensate Czech Post. Czechia argues that this is not true since: (i) Czech Post has to look for ways of streamlining its operations and making its services more attractive to customers; and (ii) the NAC calculation takes into account properly the net costs of Balíkovna both in the factual and counterfactual scenarios, thus Balíkovna services do not result in overcompensation and there is therefore no cross subsidization of the non-USO services.

6.2.2.   Czechia’s comments on PNS’s comments

| (103) | Similarly to Czechia’s view in recital 95 with respect to Zàsilkovna’s comments, Czechia considers as completely unsound the line of argument in which PNS uses current data on the market situation to address conclusions made by the CTO as regards the need to impose the obligation on completion of the 2016 review. |
| --- | --- |

(103)

Similarly to Czechia’s view in recital 95 with respect to Zàsilkovna’s comments, Czechia considers as completely unsound the line of argument in which PNS uses current data on the market situation to address conclusions made by the CTO as regards the need to impose the obligation on completion of the 2016 review.

| (104) | Similarly to Czechia’s view presented in recital 96 on whether the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, can be performed by private operators on the commercial basis without any aid, Czechia argues that, when imposing the obligation, it proceeded in line with the requirements of the Postal Services Act, which transposes Directive 97/67/EC. In the public consultation carried out by the CTO in the context of the 2016 review, PNS (i.e. Mediaservis s.r.o. at the time) expressed its view that the imposition of the USO was at the time still necessary since the market could not provide such services. Czechia adds that, during the 2016 review, no other operators were identified as being able to ensure, on a commercial basis, the discharge of postal services in a manner consistent with the provision of the USO. |
| --- | --- |

(104)

Similarly to Czechia’s view presented in recital 96 on whether the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, can be performed by private operators on the commercial basis without any aid, Czechia argues that, when imposing the obligation, it proceeded in line with the requirements of the Postal Services Act, which transposes Directive 97/67/EC. In the public consultation carried out by the CTO in the context of the 2016 review, PNS (i.e. Mediaservis s.r.o. at the time) expressed its view that the imposition of the USO was at the time still necessary since the market could not provide such services. Czechia adds that, during the 2016 review, no other operators were identified as being able to ensure, on a commercial basis, the discharge of postal services in a manner consistent with the provision of the USO.

| (105) | As regards PNS’s claim that the PMO service can be performed by financial institutions in the same manner but cheaper than Czech Post and therefore it should be excluded from the scope of the USO, Czechia argues that the 2016 review, in which PNS did not oppose the inclusion of the PMO in the scope of the USO, concluded that: (i) the PMO service constitutes an objective public need; (ii) no other market service could substitute for a PMO; and (iii) there was a need to include such service within the scope of the USO. Furthermore, Czechia explains that, based on information from separate records of costs and revenues, the PMO service was not loss-making in 2018 or 2019 (profitability in both years exceeded [5-25] %) and no additional net costs are incurred in the provision of this service, as is also asserted by Czech Post in its letter to the Commission of 21 July 2020 (point [18.]) |
| --- | --- |

(105)

As regards PNS’s claim that the PMO service can be performed by financial institutions in the same manner but cheaper than Czech Post and therefore it should be excluded from the scope of the USO, Czechia argues that the 2016 review, in which PNS did not oppose the inclusion of the PMO in the scope of the USO, concluded that: (i) the PMO service constitutes an objective public need; (ii) no other market service could substitute for a PMO; and (iii) there was a need to include such service within the scope of the USO. Furthermore, Czechia explains that, based on information from separate records of costs and revenues, the PMO service was not loss-making in 2018 or 2019 (profitability in both years exceeded [5-25] %) and no additional net costs are incurred in the provision of this service, as is also asserted by Czech Post in its letter to the Commission of 21 July 2020 (point [18.])

| (106) | Similarly to Czechia’s view presented in recital 99 on whether public procurement rules were infringed since, allegedly, the criteria for participation in a tender for the selection of a postal licence holder were designed in a discriminatory manner, Czechia is of the opinion that the tender procedure was not discriminatory but on the contrary, it was designed in a way to enable any postal services operator to apply to be designated as the universal service provider. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

Similarly to Czechia’s view presented in recital 99 on whether public procurement rules were infringed since, allegedly, the criteria for participation in a tender for the selection of a postal licence holder were designed in a discriminatory manner, Czechia is of the opinion that the tender procedure was not discriminatory but on the contrary, it was designed in a way to enable any postal services operator to apply to be designated as the universal service provider.

| (107) | As regards PNS’s claim that Czech Post is overcompensated since the number of post offices which would not be operated by Czech Post if no obligation was imposed, had been intentionally modified to result in a higher NAC, in connection with the increased compensation limit since 2018, Czechia, as per its explanations in recital 100, argues that: (i) the change in the number of post offices to close in the counterfactual scenario stems from the change in the obligation to operate a higher number of post offices; (ii) the closure of post offices has been quantified correctly in the counterfactual scenario; and (iii) the overall operation and development of Czech Post’s network is in line with the market trends. |
| --- | --- |

(107)

As regards PNS’s claim that Czech Post is overcompensated since the number of post offices which would not be operated by Czech Post if no obligation was imposed, had been intentionally modified to result in a higher NAC, in connection with the increased compensation limit since 2018, Czechia, as per its explanations in recital 100, argues that: (i) the change in the number of post offices to close in the counterfactual scenario stems from the change in the obligation to operate a higher number of post offices; (ii) the closure of post offices has been quantified correctly in the counterfactual scenario; and (iii) the overall operation and development of Czech Post’s network is in line with the market trends.

| (108) | As regards PNS’s claim that that Czech Post’s two-speed delivery (priority D+1 and economy D+n) introduced in February 2020 infringes the obligation of guaranteeing postal delivery every working day, Czechia argues that: (i) Czech Post continues to be obliged to guarantee delivery to any address every working day if customers request it; (ii) customers express this request by paying for priority postal delivery and the post item is delivered under the D+1 regime; and (iii) the modification of the services offered by Czech Post in the form of two delivery speeds and the resulting cost savings were duly taken into account when establishing an estimate of the net costs for the purposes of this notification. |
| --- | --- |

(108)

As regards PNS’s claim that that Czech Post’s two-speed delivery (priority D+1 and economy D+n) introduced in February 2020 infringes the obligation of guaranteeing postal delivery every working day, Czechia argues that: (i) Czech Post continues to be obliged to guarantee delivery to any address every working day if customers request it; (ii) customers express this request by paying for priority postal delivery and the post item is delivered under the D+1 regime; and (iii) the modification of the services offered by Czech Post in the form of two delivery speeds and the resulting cost savings were duly taken into account when establishing an estimate of the net costs for the purposes of this notification.

| (109) | As regards PNS’s claim that Czech Post is misusing the USO compensation to cross-finance the services it provides outside the scope of the USO and offer non-USO services at extremely low prices, Czechia argues that the price comparison example between two services, ‘economy common post item’ vs ‘direct post item’ put forward by PNS in order to illustrate this allegation is not appropriate. While the service of ‘common post item’ (obyčejné psaní) is available to anyone and can be sent by submitting it at any post office of Czech Post or by placing it in a post box, and there is no minimum volume of individual post items (41), the service of ‘direct post item’ (obchodní psaní) is intended for bulk mailers with a minimum volume of a given post item of 500 pieces of identical dimensions and it can be sent only on the basis of a contract with Czech Post and only from selected postal offices, while the post items must be pre-processed (sorted and bundled) according to the requirements laid down in advance in the contract. Moreover, these post items may contain only newspapers, magazines, books, brochures, catalogues, leaflets or printed matter of solely promotional nature, information intended for members of customer and loyalty clubs, as well as communications aimed at raising funds or other resources for activities carried out in the public interest by organisations or individuals. The difference between the prices of the two services reflects the aforementioned differences in quality and company’s resources consumed for the provision of each service. Moreover, Czechia recalls the judgment of the General Court in První novinová společnost (42) which concludes that the SGEI Framework does not in any way preclude a USO operator from being able freely to allocate the compensation paid for that purpose to other services. |
| --- | --- |

(109)

As regards PNS’s claim that Czech Post is misusing the USO compensation to cross-finance the services it provides outside the scope of the USO and offer non-USO services at extremely low prices, Czechia argues that the price comparison example between two services, ‘economy common post item’ vs ‘direct post item’ put forward by PNS in order to illustrate this allegation is not appropriate. While the service of ‘common post item’ (obyčejné psaní) is available to anyone and can be sent by submitting it at any post office of Czech Post or by placing it in a post box, and there is no minimum volume of individual post items (41), the service of ‘direct post item’ (obchodní psaní) is intended for bulk mailers with a minimum volume of a given post item of 500 pieces of identical dimensions and it can be sent only on the basis of a contract with Czech Post and only from selected postal offices, while the post items must be pre-processed (sorted and bundled) according to the requirements laid down in advance in the contract. Moreover, these post items may contain only newspapers, magazines, books, brochures, catalogues, leaflets or printed matter of solely promotional nature, information intended for members of customer and loyalty clubs, as well as communications aimed at raising funds or other resources for activities carried out in the public interest by organisations or individuals. The difference between the prices of the two services reflects the aforementioned differences in quality and company’s resources consumed for the provision of each service. Moreover, Czechia recalls the judgment of the General Court in První novinová společnost (42) which concludes that the SGEI Framework does not in any way preclude a USO operator from being able freely to allocate the compensation paid for that purpose to other services.

| (110) | Czechia rejects PNS’s claims that: (i) the costs of non-USO services are incorrectly allocated to the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, in order to create an impression that the provision of the USO represents a significant financial burden for Czech Post; (ii) the rules governing the allocation of costs and revenues for the purposes of keeping separate accounts are entirely at the discretion of the postal licence holder; and (iii) the CTO does not examine in any way whether the allocation rules (keys) are factually correct. Czechia argues that postal licence holders in Czechia are obliged to submit their allocation rules to the CTO for approval under Section 33a(4) of the Postal Services Act, which also lays down the CTO’s competence to examine and approve these rules. The approved allocation rules include a detailed description of the principle governing the allocation of costs and revenues from financial accounting to the level of detail needed for separate records of costs and revenues as required of postal licence holders by the Postal Services Act and in line with Decree No 465/2012 implementing that Act. Considering the aforementioned, in Czechia’s view, Czech Post accounts are properly separated between USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, and non-USO services. |
| --- | --- |

(110)

Czechia rejects PNS’s claims that: (i) the costs of non-USO services are incorrectly allocated to the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, in order to create an impression that the provision of the USO represents a significant financial burden for Czech Post; (ii) the rules governing the allocation of costs and revenues for the purposes of keeping separate accounts are entirely at the discretion of the postal licence holder; and (iii) the CTO does not examine in any way whether the allocation rules (keys) are factually correct. Czechia argues that postal licence holders in Czechia are obliged to submit their allocation rules to the CTO for approval under Section 33a(4) of the Postal Services Act, which also lays down the CTO’s competence to examine and approve these rules. The approved allocation rules include a detailed description of the principle governing the allocation of costs and revenues from financial accounting to the level of detail needed for separate records of costs and revenues as required of postal licence holders by the Postal Services Act and in line with Decree No 465/2012 implementing that Act. Considering the aforementioned, in Czechia’s view, Czech Post accounts are properly separated between USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, and non-USO services.

| (111) | Finally, as regards PNS’s allegations presented in recital 71 that Czech Post spends ‘unreasonably, purposelessly and inefficiently’ in the context of ‘dubious contracts, transactions and circumstances’, Czechia argues that whether Czech Post’s expenditure is effective and efficient is monitored by its founder, i.e. the Ministry of the Interior, while in parallel Czech Post has put in place its own internal Corporate Compliance Programme against corruption and other forms of misconduct (43) and where, despite all the measures in place, there are doubts about unfair practices in the award of a particular contract, the issue is addressed by the competent authorities such as the Municipal Court in Prague. |
| --- | --- |

(111)

Finally, as regards PNS’s allegations presented in recital 71 that Czech Post spends ‘unreasonably, purposelessly and inefficiently’ in the context of ‘dubious contracts, transactions and circumstances’, Czechia argues that whether Czech Post’s expenditure is effective and efficient is monitored by its founder, i.e. the Ministry of the Interior, while in parallel Czech Post has put in place its own internal Corporate Compliance Programme against corruption and other forms of misconduct (43) and where, despite all the measures in place, there are doubts about unfair practices in the award of a particular contract, the issue is addressed by the competent authorities such as the Municipal Court in Prague.

7.   ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

7.1.   Existence of aid

| (112) | According to Article 107(1) TFEU ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’. |
| --- | --- |

(112)

According to Article 107(1) TFEU ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.’.

| (113) | It follows that, in order for a measure to be qualified as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the following four cumulative conditions have to be met: (i) the measure has to be imputable to the Member State and granted through State resources; (ii) it has to confer an economic advantage to undertakings; (iii) the advantage has to be selective; and (iv) the measure has to distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(113)

It follows that, in order for a measure to be qualified as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the following four cumulative conditions have to be met: (i) the measure has to be imputable to the Member State and granted through State resources; (ii) it has to confer an economic advantage to undertakings; (iii) the advantage has to be selective; and (iv) the measure has to distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

7.2.   Aid imputable to the State and existence of State resources

| (114) | In order to be qualified as State aid, a measure must be imputable to the State and granted directly or indirectly by means of State resources. |
| --- | --- |

(114)

In order to be qualified as State aid, a measure must be imputable to the State and granted directly or indirectly by means of State resources.

| (115) | The compensation for the provision of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is paid by Czechia from its own budget and is administered by the CTO. The CTO determines the amount of compensation following the procedure set out by the Postal Services Act (see Section 8.2.2). |
| --- | --- |

(115)

The compensation for the provision of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is paid by Czechia from its own budget and is administered by the CTO. The CTO determines the amount of compensation following the procedure set out by the Postal Services Act (see Section 8.2.2).

| (116) | Therefore, the compensation granted to Czech Post for discharging its USO is imputable to the State and is granted through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

(116)

Therefore, the compensation granted to Czech Post for discharging its USO is imputable to the State and is granted through State resources.

7.3.   Aid granted to an undertaking

| (117) | Public funding granted to an entity can qualify as State aid only if that entity is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The CJEU has consistently defined undertakings as entities engaged in an economic activity (44). The qualification of an entity as an undertaking thus depends on the nature of its activity, with no regard to the entity’s legal status or the way in which it is financed (45). An activity must generally be considered to be economic in nature where it consists in offering goods and services on a market (46). An entity that carries out both economic and non-economic activities is to be regarded as an undertaking only with regard to the former (47). |
| --- | --- |

(117)

Public funding granted to an entity can qualify as State aid only if that entity is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The CJEU has consistently defined undertakings as entities engaged in an economic activity (44). The qualification of an entity as an undertaking thus depends on the nature of its activity, with no regard to the entity’s legal status or the way in which it is financed (45). An activity must generally be considered to be economic in nature where it consists in offering goods and services on a market (46). An entity that carries out both economic and non-economic activities is to be regarded as an undertaking only with regard to the former (47).

| (118) | In the present case, Czech Post offers postal services for remuneration on the Czech Postal market and in competition with other providers. Offering postal services on this market constitutes an economic activity. The State compensates Czech Post for the provision of some services (the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities) and therefore compensates an economic activity. Accordingly, with respect to the activities financed by the measures in question, Czech Post qualifies as an undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(118)

In the present case, Czech Post offers postal services for remuneration on the Czech Postal market and in competition with other providers. Offering postal services on this market constitutes an economic activity. The State compensates Czech Post for the provision of some services (the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities) and therefore compensates an economic activity. Accordingly, with respect to the activities financed by the measures in question, Czech Post qualifies as an undertaking.

7.4.   Advantage

| (119) | An advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU is any economic benefit which an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, i.e. in the absence of State intervention (48). Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, neither the cause nor the objective of the State intervention (49). Whenever the financial situation of the undertaking is improved as a result of State intervention, an advantage is present. |
| --- | --- |

(119)

An advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU is any economic benefit which an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, i.e. in the absence of State intervention (48). Only the effect of the measure on the undertaking is relevant, neither the cause nor the objective of the State intervention (49). Whenever the financial situation of the undertaking is improved as a result of State intervention, an advantage is present.

| (120) | The USO compensation is designed to cover all or part of the net cost incurred by Czech Post in performing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. Without State intervention, Czech Post would have to bear these costs itself. The measure under assessment relieves Czech Post of some of the costs of its economic activities and improves Czech Post’s financial situation. In consequence, and without prejudice to the question of whether the measure complies with the conditions set by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark (50), the measure under assessment prima facie grants Czech Post an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

(120)

The USO compensation is designed to cover all or part of the net cost incurred by Czech Post in performing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. Without State intervention, Czech Post would have to bear these costs itself. The measure under assessment relieves Czech Post of some of the costs of its economic activities and improves Czech Post’s financial situation. In consequence, and without prejudice to the question of whether the measure complies with the conditions set by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark (50), the measure under assessment prima facie grants Czech Post an advantage.

Compliance with the Altmark criteria

| (121) | Public service compensation granted to an undertaking that complies with the four criteria laid down in Altmark is deemed not to grant any economic advantage and thus does not constitute State aid. Those four criteria, which are cumulative, are the following:






  (a) | the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and those obligations must be clearly defined; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(121)

Public service compensation granted to an undertaking that complies with the four criteria laid down in Altmark is deemed not to grant any economic advantage and thus does not constitute State aid. Those four criteria, which are cumulative, are the following:

(a)

the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and those obligations must be clearly defined;

| (b) | the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner;

| (c) | the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public services obligation, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public services obligation, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit;

| (d) | where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant a public procurement procedure, which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs, which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant a public procurement procedure, which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs, which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit from discharging the obligations.

| (122) | Concerning the compensation granted to Czech Post during the period under review, the Czech authorities acknowledge that the fourth Altmark criterion is not fulfilled. The Commission also considers that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met since, in the absence of a public procurement procedure which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the service at the least cost to the community (51), the Czech authorities have failed to demonstrate that the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a well-run undertaking within the same sector, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit. |
| --- | --- |

(122)

Concerning the compensation granted to Czech Post during the period under review, the Czech authorities acknowledge that the fourth Altmark criterion is not fulfilled. The Commission also considers that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met since, in the absence of a public procurement procedure which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the service at the least cost to the community (51), the Czech authorities have failed to demonstrate that the level of compensation was determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a well-run undertaking within the same sector, taking into account the receipts and a reasonable profit.

| (123) | Due to the cumulative nature of the four Altmark criteria, if any of these criteria are not fulfilled, the compensation will be deemed to constitute an advantage in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. Since at least one of the four Altmark criteria is not fulfilled in the present case, the Commission concludes that the compensation for delivering the USO grants an advantage to Czech Post. |
| --- | --- |

(123)

Due to the cumulative nature of the four Altmark criteria, if any of these criteria are not fulfilled, the compensation will be deemed to constitute an advantage in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. Since at least one of the four Altmark criteria is not fulfilled in the present case, the Commission concludes that the compensation for delivering the USO grants an advantage to Czech Post.

7.5.   Selectivity

| (124) | Article 107(1) TFEU requires that a measure, in order to be defined as State aid, favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. The Commission notes that the USO compensation will be granted to Czech Post only. Given that the present case concerns an individual aid measure, the identification of the economic advantage (see recitals 119 to 123) is sufficient to support the presumption that the measure is selective (52). In any event, it does not appear that other undertakings in the same or other sectors in a comparable factual and legal situation benefit from the same advantage. Hence, the measure is selective within the meaning of Article 107 (1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(124)

Article 107(1) TFEU requires that a measure, in order to be defined as State aid, favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. The Commission notes that the USO compensation will be granted to Czech Post only. Given that the present case concerns an individual aid measure, the identification of the economic advantage (see recitals 119 to 123) is sufficient to support the presumption that the measure is selective (52). In any event, it does not appear that other undertakings in the same or other sectors in a comparable factual and legal situation benefit from the same advantage. Hence, the measure is selective within the meaning of Article 107 (1) TFEU.

7.6.   Effect on trade and distortion of competition

| (125) | Public support to undertakings constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if it ‘distorts or threatens to distort competition’ and insofar as it ‘affects trade between Member States’. |
| --- | --- |

(125)

Public support to undertakings constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU if it ‘distorts or threatens to distort competition’ and insofar as it ‘affects trade between Member States’.

| (126) | Concerning the distortion of competition, a measure granted by a State is considered to distort or to threaten to distort competition when it is liable to improve the competitive position of the recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes (53). For all practical purposes, a distortion of competition is assumed when a State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition. |
| --- | --- |

(126)

Concerning the distortion of competition, a measure granted by a State is considered to distort or to threaten to distort competition when it is liable to improve the competitive position of the recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes (53). For all practical purposes, a distortion of competition is assumed when a State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition.

| (127) | Concerning the effect on trade, the case-law of the Court of Justice has established that any grant of aid to an undertaking exercising its activities in the internal market can be liable to affect trade between Member States (54). In the field of State aid, such an effect on trade is not a priori precluded by the local or regional character of the service provided. While there is no strict threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected, the limited scope of the economic activity, as may be evidenced by a very low turnover, renders the presence of an effect on trade less likely. |
| --- | --- |

(127)

Concerning the effect on trade, the case-law of the Court of Justice has established that any grant of aid to an undertaking exercising its activities in the internal market can be liable to affect trade between Member States (54). In the field of State aid, such an effect on trade is not a priori precluded by the local or regional character of the service provided. While there is no strict threshold or percentage below which it may be considered that trade between Member States is not affected, the limited scope of the economic activity, as may be evidenced by a very low turnover, renders the presence of an effect on trade less likely.

| (128) | As regards the present case, the Commission observes that Czech Post operates in the Czech postal market, which has been liberalised since 1 January 2013. Czech Post, therefore, operates in competition with other providers. |
| --- | --- |

(128)

As regards the present case, the Commission observes that Czech Post operates in the Czech postal market, which has been liberalised since 1 January 2013. Czech Post, therefore, operates in competition with other providers.

| (129) | Certain competitors of Czech Post, in particular competitors providing parcel-delivery services, are part of international groups which also operate in other Member States (e.g. DPD). |
| --- | --- |

(129)

Certain competitors of Czech Post, in particular competitors providing parcel-delivery services, are part of international groups which also operate in other Member States (e.g. DPD).

| (130) | Therefore, there is trade between Member States in the postal sector and the public service compensation granted to Czech Post strengthens its position vis-à-vis other postal undertakings competing in intra-Union trade. |
| --- | --- |

(130)

Therefore, there is trade between Member States in the postal sector and the public service compensation granted to Czech Post strengthens its position vis-à-vis other postal undertakings competing in intra-Union trade.

| (131) | The Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is liable to affect trade and distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

(131)

The Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is liable to affect trade and distort competition.

7.7.   Conclusion

| (132) | Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO over the period 2018-2022 meets the criteria set out in Article 107(1) TFEU and, therefore, the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

(132)

Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO over the period 2018-2022 meets the criteria set out in Article 107(1) TFEU and, therefore, the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of that provision.

7.8.   Lawfulness of the aid measures notified to the Commission

| (133) | Based on Section 34c and 34d of the Postal services Act, Czech Post has a right to receive a yearly compensation equal to the net costs (capped at CZK 1,5 billion if the net costs are higher than CZK 1,5 billion) once that the CTO has verified the net costs of Czech Post. Indeed, Section 34c(3) of the Postal services Act provides that ‘the State, through the [CTO], shall reimburse the provisional net costs to the postal licence holder [...]’. In addition, Article 34d(4) of the Postal services Act provides that ‘the State shall pay, through the [CTO], an amount equal to the difference between the [provisional net costs and the definitive net costs representing an unfair burden] to the postal licence holder [...]’. |
| --- | --- |

(133)

Based on Section 34c and 34d of the Postal services Act, Czech Post has a right to receive a yearly compensation equal to the net costs (capped at CZK 1,5 billion if the net costs are higher than CZK 1,5 billion) once that the CTO has verified the net costs of Czech Post. Indeed, Section 34c(3) of the Postal services Act provides that ‘the State, through the [CTO], shall reimburse the provisional net costs to the postal licence holder [...]’. In addition, Article 34d(4) of the Postal services Act provides that ‘the State shall pay, through the [CTO], an amount equal to the difference between the [provisional net costs and the definitive net costs representing an unfair burden] to the postal licence holder [...]’.

| (134) | Following CTO’s verification of Czech Post’s net costs, Czech Post has already recorded the yearly compensation for the years 2018-2022 in its accounts, even if that compensation is not yet paid (55). |
| --- | --- |

(134)

Following CTO’s verification of Czech Post’s net costs, Czech Post has already recorded the yearly compensation for the years 2018-2022 in its accounts, even if that compensation is not yet paid (55).

| (135) | Therefore, the Commission considers that the USO compensation constitutes unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of the Procedural Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(135)

Therefore, the Commission considers that the USO compensation constitutes unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of the Procedural Regulation.

8.   COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT

8.1.   Compatibility under Article 106(2) TFEU

| (136) | Insofar as USO compensation benefiting Czech Post constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, its compatibility with the internal market needs to be assessed. |
| --- | --- |

(136)

Insofar as USO compensation benefiting Czech Post constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, its compatibility with the internal market needs to be assessed.

| (137) | The Czech authorities consider that USO compensation constitutes a compensation for carrying out SGEIs. Therefore, the compatibility of such compensation with the internal market is to be assessed on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(137)

The Czech authorities consider that USO compensation constitutes a compensation for carrying out SGEIs. Therefore, the compatibility of such compensation with the internal market is to be assessed on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU.

| (138) | Article 106(2) TFEU provides that: ‘undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.’. |
| --- | --- |

(138)

Article 106(2) TFEU provides that: ‘undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.’.

| (139) | In accordance with this provision, the Commission may declare compensation for SGEIs compatible with the internal market, provided that certain conditions are met. The Commission has laid down the conditions according to which it applies Article 106(2) TFEU in the 2012 SGEI Decision (56) and the 2012 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(139)

In accordance with this provision, the Commission may declare compensation for SGEIs compatible with the internal market, provided that certain conditions are met. The Commission has laid down the conditions according to which it applies Article 106(2) TFEU in the 2012 SGEI Decision (56) and the 2012 SGEI Framework.

| (140) | The Czech authorities have notified compensation up to a maximum annual amount of CZK 1 500 million (EUR 55,5 million). To the extent that the compensation to be granted to Czech Post is above EUR 15 million per year, that compensation does not fall within the scope of the 2012 SGEI Decision, as set out in Article 2 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(140)

The Czech authorities have notified compensation up to a maximum annual amount of CZK 1 500 million (EUR 55,5 million). To the extent that the compensation to be granted to Czech Post is above EUR 15 million per year, that compensation does not fall within the scope of the 2012 SGEI Decision, as set out in Article 2 thereof.

| (141) | State aid falling outside the scope of the 2012 SGEI Decision may be declared compatible with Article 106(2) TFEU if it is necessary for the operation of the SGEI concerned and does not affect the development of trade to such an extent as to be contrary to the interests of the Union (57). In this regard, the 2012 SGEI Framework sets out the guidelines for assessing the compatibility of SGEI compensation. |
| --- | --- |

(141)

State aid falling outside the scope of the 2012 SGEI Decision may be declared compatible with Article 106(2) TFEU if it is necessary for the operation of the SGEI concerned and does not affect the development of trade to such an extent as to be contrary to the interests of the Union (57). In this regard, the 2012 SGEI Framework sets out the guidelines for assessing the compatibility of SGEI compensation.

8.2.   Compliance with 2012 SGEI Framework

| (142) | In order to assess the compatibility of the USO compensation granted to Czech Post, the 2012 SGEI Framework describes the relevant conditions that have to be met. These conditions are listed below. |
| --- | --- |

(142)

In order to assess the compatibility of the USO compensation granted to Czech Post, the 2012 SGEI Framework describes the relevant conditions that have to be met. These conditions are listed below.

8.2.1.   Genuine service of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106 TFEU

| (143) | As indicated in paragraph 46 of the Commission’s SGEI Communication (58), Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that could be classified as being SGEIs. The Commission’s competence is limited to checking that the margin of discretion is applied without manifest error as regards the definition of the SGEI and to assessing any State aid involved in the compensation. Paragraph 56 of the 2012 SGEI Framework confirms Member States’ wide margin of discretion to define SGEI. |
| --- | --- |

(143)

As indicated in paragraph 46 of the Commission’s SGEI Communication (58), Member States have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that could be classified as being SGEIs. The Commission’s competence is limited to checking that the margin of discretion is applied without manifest error as regards the definition of the SGEI and to assessing any State aid involved in the compensation. Paragraph 56 of the 2012 SGEI Framework confirms Member States’ wide margin of discretion to define SGEI.

| (144) | To demonstrate that the compensation is granted for a genuine SGEI, ‘Member States should show [when granting compensation under the SGEI framework (59)] that they have given proper consideration to the public service needs supported by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments to take the interests of users and providers into account.’ |
| --- | --- |

(144)

To demonstrate that the compensation is granted for a genuine SGEI, ‘Member States should show [when granting compensation under the SGEI framework (59)] that they have given proper consideration to the public service needs supported by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments to take the interests of users and providers into account.’

| (145) | The USO as defined in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC is recognised as a genuine SGEI (60). As a result, Member States do not have to prove by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments that they have given consideration to public service needs when entrusting a provider with the USO as defined in that Article 3. |
| --- | --- |

(145)

The USO as defined in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC is recognised as a genuine SGEI (60). As a result, Member States do not have to prove by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments that they have given consideration to public service needs when entrusting a provider with the USO as defined in that Article 3.

| (146) | However, the USO entrusted to Czech Post, as described in recital 22, is wider than the services described in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. In particular, the USO , as defined by the Czech authorities, includes the postal services (‘postal SGEI’) as defined in that provision as well as the PMO services, which are not listed in that provision and are referred to in Directive 2008/6/EC as additional or complementary services which may be made available at national level. |
| --- | --- |

(146)

However, the USO entrusted to Czech Post, as described in recital 22, is wider than the services described in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. In particular, the USO , as defined by the Czech authorities, includes the postal services (‘postal SGEI’) as defined in that provision as well as the PMO services, which are not listed in that provision and are referred to in Directive 2008/6/EC as additional or complementary services which may be made available at national level.

| (147) | The Czech authorities explained that since PMO services are profitable, the inclusion of the PMO in the scope of the USO does not increase the net cost, but on the contrary has a positive effect on the amount of net costs of the USO (it decreases their amount). The Czech authorities also explained that PMO services do not represent an exclusive right. They are services which are necessary to meet the needs of the public and authorities in relation to certain payments. From the Postal Services Act point of view, PMO services are a part of the USO while the obligation to provide PMO services can be imposed separately or together with other basic postal services. |
| --- | --- |

(147)

The Czech authorities explained that since PMO services are profitable, the inclusion of the PMO in the scope of the USO does not increase the net cost, but on the contrary has a positive effect on the amount of net costs of the USO (it decreases their amount). The Czech authorities also explained that PMO services do not represent an exclusive right. They are services which are necessary to meet the needs of the public and authorities in relation to certain payments. From the Postal Services Act point of view, PMO services are a part of the USO while the obligation to provide PMO services can be imposed separately or together with other basic postal services.

| (148) | The Commission considers that PMO services are not included in the scope of the USO as defined in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. However, according to recital 30 of Directive 2008/6/EC, Member States may decide to make accessible to the public, on their national territory, additional or complementary services, such as PMO, with the exception of those relating to the universal service obligations, as defined in Directive 97/67/EC. Member States may impose obligations to provide such services on the universal service provider. |
| --- | --- |

(148)

The Commission considers that PMO services are not included in the scope of the USO as defined in Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC. However, according to recital 30 of Directive 2008/6/EC, Member States may decide to make accessible to the public, on their national territory, additional or complementary services, such as PMO, with the exception of those relating to the universal service obligations, as defined in Directive 97/67/EC. Member States may impose obligations to provide such services on the universal service provider.

| (149) | The Commission notes that the CTO took the decision to classify the postal services and PMO services, included in the scope of the USO, as genuine SGEIs in 2016, in the context of a regular 5-year review, considering the market conditions at the time, i.e. 2016. Furthermore, in the context of the 2016 review, neither Zàsilkovna nor PNS objected to the public need for such postal and PMO services. Nor did they object to the decision of the CTO to impose those SGEIs on the basis of a market failure. |
| --- | --- |

(149)

The Commission notes that the CTO took the decision to classify the postal services and PMO services, included in the scope of the USO, as genuine SGEIs in 2016, in the context of a regular 5-year review, considering the market conditions at the time, i.e. 2016. Furthermore, in the context of the 2016 review, neither Zàsilkovna nor PNS objected to the public need for such postal and PMO services. Nor did they object to the decision of the CTO to impose those SGEIs on the basis of a market failure.

| (150) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claims in recitals 57 and 58, as well as PNS’s claims in recitals 64 and 65, that, based on the current market conditions, there is no market failure for both the postal and PMO services, the Commission notes that the Czech authorities have a discretion in organising and ensuring the provision of the SGEIs. To this end, the Czech authorities have established a regular 5-year review of both the postal and PMO services, on the basis of which they assess the public needs along with the market conditions at the time of the review. The review assessing the need to impose the obligation for both services for the current 2018-2022 period, was carried out in 2016 and concluded that there was a market failure for both services, postal and PMO. The current market conditions on the market as well as future possible developments were taken into consideration in the 2021 review concerning the 2023-2027 period. |
| --- | --- |

(150)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claims in recitals 57 and 58, as well as PNS’s claims in recitals 64 and 65, that, based on the current market conditions, there is no market failure for both the postal and PMO services, the Commission notes that the Czech authorities have a discretion in organising and ensuring the provision of the SGEIs. To this end, the Czech authorities have established a regular 5-year review of both the postal and PMO services, on the basis of which they assess the public needs along with the market conditions at the time of the review. The review assessing the need to impose the obligation for both services for the current 2018-2022 period, was carried out in 2016 and concluded that there was a market failure for both services, postal and PMO. The current market conditions on the market as well as future possible developments were taken into consideration in the 2021 review concerning the 2023-2027 period.

| (151) | As outlined in recitals 4 to 8 of Directive 2008/6/EC, the postal universal services as defined on the basis of Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC are recognised as a genuine SGEI (61). As the postal services included in the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, entrusted to Czech Post correspond to the requirements outlined in Directive 97/67/EC, the Commission considers that Czechia does not have to prove that it has given consideration to public service needs by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments. Therefore, the Commission considers that paragraph (14) of the SGEI Framework is complied with as regards these services. |
| --- | --- |

(151)

As outlined in recitals 4 to 8 of Directive 2008/6/EC, the postal universal services as defined on the basis of Article 3 of Directive 97/67/EC are recognised as a genuine SGEI (61). As the postal services included in the scope of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, entrusted to Czech Post correspond to the requirements outlined in Directive 97/67/EC, the Commission considers that Czechia does not have to prove that it has given consideration to public service needs by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments. Therefore, the Commission considers that paragraph (14) of the SGEI Framework is complied with as regards these services.

| (152) | With regard to PMO services, the Commission considers that Czechia has proven that it has given consideration to public service needs by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments, as explained in recitals 73, 81, 95, 96 and 103 to 105. Based on the information provided in the course of the investigation procedure, the Commission considers that the PMO service provided by Czech Post constitutes a genuine SGEI (‘PMO SGEI’). In particular, the Czech authorities explained that similar services available on the market did not meet the requirements in terms of delivery, territorial scope or affordable price. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the requirement of paragraph 14 of the 2012 SGEI Framework insofar as PMO is concerned has been fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

(152)

With regard to PMO services, the Commission considers that Czechia has proven that it has given consideration to public service needs by way of a public consultation or other appropriate instruments, as explained in recitals 73, 81, 95, 96 and 103 to 105. Based on the information provided in the course of the investigation procedure, the Commission considers that the PMO service provided by Czech Post constitutes a genuine SGEI (‘PMO SGEI’). In particular, the Czech authorities explained that similar services available on the market did not meet the requirements in terms of delivery, territorial scope or affordable price. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the requirement of paragraph 14 of the 2012 SGEI Framework insofar as PMO is concerned has been fulfilled.

8.2.2.   Need for an entrustment act specifying the public service obligations and the methods of calculating compensation

| (153) | As indicated in paragraph (15) of the 2012 SGEI Framework, the provision of an SGEI, within the meaning of Article 106 TFEU, must be entrusted to the undertaking in question by way of one or more official acts. As required by paragraph 16 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, those entrustment acts must specify, in particular:






  (a) | the content and duration of the public service obligations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(153)

As indicated in paragraph (15) of the 2012 SGEI Framework, the provision of an SGEI, within the meaning of Article 106 TFEU, must be entrusted to the undertaking in question by way of one or more official acts. As required by paragraph 16 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, those entrustment acts must specify, in particular:

(a)

the content and duration of the public service obligations;

| (b) | the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned;

| (c) | the nature of the exclusive rights assigned to the undertaking by the granting authority; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the nature of the exclusive rights assigned to the undertaking by the granting authority;

| (d) | the description of the compensation mechanism and the parameters for calculating, monitoring and reviewing the compensation; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the description of the compensation mechanism and the parameters for calculating, monitoring and reviewing the compensation;

| (e) | the arrangements for avoiding and recovering any overcompensation. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the arrangements for avoiding and recovering any overcompensation.

| (154) | Czech Post was designated as the USO provider from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022 by a decision of the CTO (see recital 21). Czech Post’s entrustment specifies the content of the public service obligation and the territory concerned (see recitals 22-23). The compensation mechanism and the methodology used to calculate the compensation is set out in the Postal Services Act, as described in Section 2.4.2. |
| --- | --- |

(154)

Czech Post was designated as the USO provider from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022 by a decision of the CTO (see recital 21). Czech Post’s entrustment specifies the content of the public service obligation and the territory concerned (see recitals 22-23). The compensation mechanism and the methodology used to calculate the compensation is set out in the Postal Services Act, as described in Section 2.4.2.

| (155) | The Czech authorities have confirmed that there are no exclusive rights as regards postal services assigned to Czech Post in line with Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC. As to the arrangements for avoiding and recovering overcompensation, the compensation mechanism ensures that compensation is calculated and reviewed ex-post, preventing Czech Post from being overcompensated (see Section 8.2.10). |
| --- | --- |

(155)

The Czech authorities have confirmed that there are no exclusive rights as regards postal services assigned to Czech Post in line with Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC. As to the arrangements for avoiding and recovering overcompensation, the compensation mechanism ensures that compensation is calculated and reviewed ex-post, preventing Czech Post from being overcompensated (see Section 8.2.10).

| (156) | With regard to the complainants’ claims in recitals 35 and 42 that Czech Post has violated the transparency requirements set out in the SGEI Framework as well as in Directive 97/67/EC by not publishing the calculations of the NAC, the Commission notes that the transparency requirements set out in paragraph (60) of the SGEI Framework concern: i) the results of the public consultation or other appropriate instruments; ii) the content and duration of the public service obligations; iii) the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned; and iv) the amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis. Article (7)(5) of Directive 97/67/EC stipulates that, when a Member State takes a decision to introduce a mechanism to compensate the universal service provider(s) from public funds, such a decision should be based on objective and verifiable criteria and be made public. Therefore, neither the SGEI Framework nor Directive 97/96/EC requires that the calculations of the NAC should be made available to the public. As already explained in recital 155, the mechanism and the parameters used for the calculation of the compensation are laid down in the Postal Services Act and are therefore available to the public. The Commission therefore considers that those claims of the complainants are unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

(156)

With regard to the complainants’ claims in recitals 35 and 42 that Czech Post has violated the transparency requirements set out in the SGEI Framework as well as in Directive 97/67/EC by not publishing the calculations of the NAC, the Commission notes that the transparency requirements set out in paragraph (60) of the SGEI Framework concern: i) the results of the public consultation or other appropriate instruments; ii) the content and duration of the public service obligations; iii) the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned; and iv) the amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis. Article (7)(5) of Directive 97/67/EC stipulates that, when a Member State takes a decision to introduce a mechanism to compensate the universal service provider(s) from public funds, such a decision should be based on objective and verifiable criteria and be made public. Therefore, neither the SGEI Framework nor Directive 97/96/EC requires that the calculations of the NAC should be made available to the public. As already explained in recital 155, the mechanism and the parameters used for the calculation of the compensation are laid down in the Postal Services Act and are therefore available to the public. The Commission therefore considers that those claims of the complainants are unfounded.

| (157) | The Commission further notes that the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, entrusted to Czech Post consists of two SGEIs, the postal SGEI, within the meaning of the Directive 97/67/EC, and PMO SGEI. The entrustment act includes the content and duration of the public service obligations; the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned; and the amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis for both SGEIs The Commission considers that the fact that both SGEIs are entrusted with the same entrustment act, does not violate the transparency requirements set out in the SGEI Framework as well as those set in Directive 97/67/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(157)

The Commission further notes that the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, entrusted to Czech Post consists of two SGEIs, the postal SGEI, within the meaning of the Directive 97/67/EC, and PMO SGEI. The entrustment act includes the content and duration of the public service obligations; the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned; and the amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis for both SGEIs The Commission considers that the fact that both SGEIs are entrusted with the same entrustment act, does not violate the transparency requirements set out in the SGEI Framework as well as those set in Directive 97/67/EC.

| (158) | To conclude, the Commission considers that the entrustment of Czech Post for the period 2018-2022 is in line with the requirements of the 2012 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(158)

To conclude, the Commission considers that the entrustment of Czech Post for the period 2018-2022 is in line with the requirements of the 2012 SGEI Framework.

8.2.3.   Duration of the period of entrustment

| (159) | As provided in Section 2.4 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘the duration of the period of entrustment should be justified by reference to objective criteria such as the need to amortise non-transferable fixed assets. In principle, the duration of the period of entrustment should not exceed the period required for the depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI.’. |
| --- | --- |

(159)

As provided in Section 2.4 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘the duration of the period of entrustment should be justified by reference to objective criteria such as the need to amortise non-transferable fixed assets. In principle, the duration of the period of entrustment should not exceed the period required for the depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI.’.

| (160) | Czech Post has been designated by the CTO as USO provider for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022, so for a period of 5 years. |
| --- | --- |

(160)

Czech Post has been designated by the CTO as USO provider for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022, so for a period of 5 years.

| (161) | According to the Czech authorities, the period of entrustment was determined in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive 97/67/EC, which requires that the duration of the designation provides a sufficiently long period for the return on investment. |
| --- | --- |

(161)

According to the Czech authorities, the period of entrustment was determined in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive 97/67/EC, which requires that the duration of the designation provides a sufficiently long period for the return on investment.

| (162) | The Czech authorities have explained that the 5-year duration of Czech Post's entrustment can be justified by reference to the expected depreciation period of the most significant assets required to provide the USO. The investments made by Czech Post in fixed assets in order to ensure the provision of the USO have accounting amortisation periods which vary widely (see table 4). The Czech authorities also explained that in Czechia every undertaking must create a plan of amortisation pursuant to Section 28(6) of the Accounting Act (Act No 563/1991 Coll.). The Accounting Act does not determine an exact depreciation period for each asset type; however, the depreciation period should correspond to the period of use, because accounting data must present a reliable picture of reality. The depreciation period is also verified by a financial auditor. The undertakings publish the plan of amortisation in their financial statements and the plan should be updated annually. The data source used to set the expected depreciation period was the financial statement of Czech Post. In any event, the duration of the entrustment period is determined when proceedings for the granting of a postal licence are initiated, i.e. before the postal licence is granted to a particular postal services provider. The 5-year period is the standard period as established by the Czech authorities in the context of their procedures to organise and ensure the provision of the SGEIs, considering the development of the market and societal needs. Finally, the Czech authorities also argue that the duration of entrustment is consistent with the practice in other Member States (62). |
| --- | --- |

(162)

The Czech authorities have explained that the 5-year duration of Czech Post's entrustment can be justified by reference to the expected depreciation period of the most significant assets required to provide the USO. The investments made by Czech Post in fixed assets in order to ensure the provision of the USO have accounting amortisation periods which vary widely (see table 4). The Czech authorities also explained that in Czechia every undertaking must create a plan of amortisation pursuant to Section 28(6) of the Accounting Act (Act No 563/1991 Coll.). The Accounting Act does not determine an exact depreciation period for each asset type; however, the depreciation period should correspond to the period of use, because accounting data must present a reliable picture of reality. The depreciation period is also verified by a financial auditor. The undertakings publish the plan of amortisation in their financial statements and the plan should be updated annually. The data source used to set the expected depreciation period was the financial statement of Czech Post. In any event, the duration of the entrustment period is determined when proceedings for the granting of a postal licence are initiated, i.e. before the postal licence is granted to a particular postal services provider. The 5-year period is the standard period as established by the Czech authorities in the context of their procedures to organise and ensure the provision of the SGEIs, considering the development of the market and societal needs. Finally, the Czech authorities also argue that the duration of entrustment is consistent with the practice in other Member States (62).

| (163) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 59 that the depreciation periods for the purposes of determining the entrustment period are unfounded, since it is not clear which of the assets listed in Table 1 of the opening decision are intended to be financed from the USO compensation, or when they were purchased or when it is intended to purchase such assets or whether their depreciation period has lapsed, the Commission notes that the duration of the entrustment is pre-established, in the context of the procedures that Czechia put in place to organise, and ensure, the provision of the USO and set in advance in the context of the initial tender for the selection of the postal service provider. Thus, before the postal licence holder was known. Furthermore, it is not realistic for the granting authority to know in advance the duration of the depreciation period for all of the assets of all potential postal service providers that may possibly participate in the tender in order to determine the duration of the entrustment. The depreciation period of the assets is used as a reference for determining the entrustment period only. Depreciation costs are not considered in the NAC because they do not represent actual costs, but only non-cash expenses used for tax purposes. According to the case law (63), Czech Post is free to use the USO compensation for any purpose. However, investment costs, such as purchase costs of assets related to the change in operation of Czech Post from the factual scenario to the counterfactual scenario, are not considered in the NAC calculations and therefore they do not have any impact on the USO compensation.

  Table 4


  Depreciation period for Czech Post's assets (needed for delivery of USO)







  Asset group | Depreciation period (years) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Buildings | 30 -45 |
| Vehicles | 6 |
| Railway transport | 15 |
| IT central | 4 -6 |
| IT retail | 3 -6 |
| Office machinery | 4 -6 |
| Warehouse machinery | 4 -6 |
| Counter machinery | 3 -8 |
| Furniture | 6 |
| Accessories of buildings | 6 -12 |
| Handling technology | 5 -12 |
| Safe and other property associated with security | 5 -20 |
| Sorting machinery | 10 |

(163)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 59 that the depreciation periods for the purposes of determining the entrustment period are unfounded, since it is not clear which of the assets listed in Table 1 of the opening decision are intended to be financed from the USO compensation, or when they were purchased or when it is intended to purchase such assets or whether their depreciation period has lapsed, the Commission notes that the duration of the entrustment is pre-established, in the context of the procedures that Czechia put in place to organise, and ensure, the provision of the USO and set in advance in the context of the initial tender for the selection of the postal service provider. Thus, before the postal licence holder was known. Furthermore, it is not realistic for the granting authority to know in advance the duration of the depreciation period for all of the assets of all potential postal service providers that may possibly participate in the tender in order to determine the duration of the entrustment. The depreciation period of the assets is used as a reference for determining the entrustment period only. Depreciation costs are not considered in the NAC because they do not represent actual costs, but only non-cash expenses used for tax purposes. According to the case law (63), Czech Post is free to use the USO compensation for any purpose. However, investment costs, such as purchase costs of assets related to the change in operation of Czech Post from the factual scenario to the counterfactual scenario, are not considered in the NAC calculations and therefore they do not have any impact on the USO compensation.

Table 4

Depreciation period for Czech Post's assets (needed for delivery of USO)

Asset group

Depreciation period (years)

Buildings

30 -45

Vehicles

6

Railway transport

15

IT central

4 -6

IT retail

3 -6

Office machinery

4 -6

Warehouse machinery

4 -6

Counter machinery

3 -8

Furniture

6

Accessories of buildings

6 -12

Handling technology

5 -12

Safe and other property associated with security

5 -20

Sorting machinery

10

| (164) | In accordance to Section 2.4 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, the duration of the entrustment period should be justified by reference to objective criteria and, in principle, not exceed the period required for the depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI. The Commission considers that an entrustment with the USO for a 5-year period is justified by reference to the depreciation period of the most significant assets required to provide both SGEIs included in the USO. Indeed, Table 4 illustrates that the depreciation period for most of Czech Post’s assets required for the delivery of the USO exceeds 5 years. In addition, the duration of the period of the entrustment is pre-established taking into account depreciation periods normally used for such assets, irrespective of the selection of the USO provider. Therefore, the Commission considers that the Czech authorities have sufficiently justified the duration of the entrustment. |
| --- | --- |

(164)

In accordance to Section 2.4 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, the duration of the entrustment period should be justified by reference to objective criteria and, in principle, not exceed the period required for the depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI. The Commission considers that an entrustment with the USO for a 5-year period is justified by reference to the depreciation period of the most significant assets required to provide both SGEIs included in the USO. Indeed, Table 4 illustrates that the depreciation period for most of Czech Post’s assets required for the delivery of the USO exceeds 5 years. In addition, the duration of the period of the entrustment is pre-established taking into account depreciation periods normally used for such assets, irrespective of the selection of the USO provider. Therefore, the Commission considers that the Czech authorities have sufficiently justified the duration of the entrustment.

8.2.4.   Compliance with Directive 2006/111/EC

| (165) | According to paragraph 18 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘aid will be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) [TFEU] only where the undertaking complies, where applicable, with [Commission] Directive 2006/111/EC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings. (64)’. |
| --- | --- |

(165)

According to paragraph 18 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘aid will be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) [TFEU] only where the undertaking complies, where applicable, with [Commission] Directive 2006/111/EC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings. (64)’.

| (166) | Furthermore, paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework requires that: ‘Where an undertaking carries out activities falling both inside and outside the scope of the SGEI, the internal accounts must show separately the costs and revenues associated with the SGEI and those of the other services in line with the principles set out in paragraph 31.’. |
| --- | --- |

(166)

Furthermore, paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework requires that: ‘Where an undertaking carries out activities falling both inside and outside the scope of the SGEI, the internal accounts must show separately the costs and revenues associated with the SGEI and those of the other services in line with the principles set out in paragraph 31.’.

| (167) | The Postal Services Act provides, in Article 33a thereof, that the postal licence holder must keep separate accounts of costs and revenues associated with the provision of individual services included in the scope of the USO for which it is designated (both the postal SGEI and the PMO SGEI), and of other services. It further foresees that the method for separating accounts are to be laid down in an implementing decree, and that the separated accounts must be audited annually by an independent auditor. |
| --- | --- |

(167)

The Postal Services Act provides, in Article 33a thereof, that the postal licence holder must keep separate accounts of costs and revenues associated with the provision of individual services included in the scope of the USO for which it is designated (both the postal SGEI and the PMO SGEI), and of other services. It further foresees that the method for separating accounts are to be laid down in an implementing decree, and that the separated accounts must be audited annually by an independent auditor.

| (168) | The implementing decree (65) was adopted by the CTO and it lays down, in Section 1 thereof, that direct costs must be allocated to the service directly related to it, whereas indirect or common costs are to be allocated on the basis of a causal link to the processes, activities or services concerned. As set out in Article 33a of the Postal Services Act, specific rules for common cost allocation, as proposed by Czech Post, must be approved by the CTO. |
| --- | --- |

(168)

The implementing decree (65) was adopted by the CTO and it lays down, in Section 1 thereof, that direct costs must be allocated to the service directly related to it, whereas indirect or common costs are to be allocated on the basis of a causal link to the processes, activities or services concerned. As set out in Article 33a of the Postal Services Act, specific rules for common cost allocation, as proposed by Czech Post, must be approved by the CTO.

| (169) | In particular, Czech Post’s separate account system and cost allocation method is based on the Activity Based Costing (ABC) method. In a first step, costs are allocated to cost centres, e.g. a post-office, depot, sorting centre, etc. Costs are allocated to cost centres for each activity that can be recorded separately. Czech Post’s accounting system currently has around 5 740 cost centres. Cost items that are not recorded at operating cost centres (e.g. VAT, overhead) are allocated according to pre-approved rules following a calculation at the level of the operating cost centres. The allocation of such costs is proportional to the allocation of direct costs. |
| --- | --- |

(169)

In particular, Czech Post’s separate account system and cost allocation method is based on the Activity Based Costing (ABC) method. In a first step, costs are allocated to cost centres, e.g. a post-office, depot, sorting centre, etc. Costs are allocated to cost centres for each activity that can be recorded separately. Czech Post’s accounting system currently has around 5 740 cost centres. Cost items that are not recorded at operating cost centres (e.g. VAT, overhead) are allocated according to pre-approved rules following a calculation at the level of the operating cost centres. The allocation of such costs is proportional to the allocation of direct costs.

| (170) | The Czech authorities have explained that the separation of accounts is subject to auditing by an independent professional company. The auditor must verify that the postal licence holder has used the approved rules in accounting practice and the annual results of accounting separation are correct. Moreover, Czechia submitted the independent auditor’s reports for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 which certify that Czech Post’s internal accounting is in line with Directive 97/67/EC, national law and rules approved by the CTO and thus suitable for quantifying the net costs of the USO entrusted to it. |
| --- | --- |

(170)

The Czech authorities have explained that the separation of accounts is subject to auditing by an independent professional company. The auditor must verify that the postal licence holder has used the approved rules in accounting practice and the annual results of accounting separation are correct. Moreover, Czechia submitted the independent auditor’s reports for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 which certify that Czech Post’s internal accounting is in line with Directive 97/67/EC, national law and rules approved by the CTO and thus suitable for quantifying the net costs of the USO entrusted to it.

| (171) | PNS claims in recital 70 that Czech Post does not separate its accounts properly and wrongly allocates costs related to non-USO services to USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities, thereby cross-subsidising the losses of the non-USO items. PNS also claims that the CTO as well as the auditor do not effectively investigate whether the separation of accounts has been performed correctly or the allocation keys are materially correct. In this regard, the Commission considers that the Czech authorities have demonstrated that Czech Post's accounting and cost allocation system allows for an allocation of costs and revenues between activities with a sufficient level of adequacy. As the Czech authorities have indicated, costs are allocated based on the proportionality principle, taking into consideration the use of individual elements of the postal network. Furthermore, as explained in recital 171, when certifying that Czech Post’s internal accounting over 2018-2020 is in line with Directive 97/67/EC, national law and rules approved by the CTO, the independent auditor checks the separation of accounts and cost allocation keys and thus suitable for quantifying the net costs of the SGEIs (postal and PMO) entrusted to it. Finally, the Commission recalls recital 139 of the opening decision which clarifies that the alleged misallocation of costs is an accounting matter and would not involve the transfer of any State resources and therefore does not amount to State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(171)

PNS claims in recital 70 that Czech Post does not separate its accounts properly and wrongly allocates costs related to non-USO services to USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities, thereby cross-subsidising the losses of the non-USO items. PNS also claims that the CTO as well as the auditor do not effectively investigate whether the separation of accounts has been performed correctly or the allocation keys are materially correct. In this regard, the Commission considers that the Czech authorities have demonstrated that Czech Post's accounting and cost allocation system allows for an allocation of costs and revenues between activities with a sufficient level of adequacy. As the Czech authorities have indicated, costs are allocated based on the proportionality principle, taking into consideration the use of individual elements of the postal network. Furthermore, as explained in recital 171, when certifying that Czech Post’s internal accounting over 2018-2020 is in line with Directive 97/67/EC, national law and rules approved by the CTO, the independent auditor checks the separation of accounts and cost allocation keys and thus suitable for quantifying the net costs of the SGEIs (postal and PMO) entrusted to it. Finally, the Commission recalls recital 139 of the opening decision which clarifies that the alleged misallocation of costs is an accounting matter and would not involve the transfer of any State resources and therefore does not amount to State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

| (172) | Similarly, with regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recitals 37, 38, 60 and 63 that Czech Post voluntarily subsidises the below-cost prices for its non-USO services, such as Balíkovna, and allocates the non-USO activities’ costs and losses to USO activities, as defined by the Czech authorities, the Commission considers, similar to its conclusion in recital 172, that the Czech authorities have demonstrated sufficiently that Czech Post’s accounts have been separated in line with the requirements laid down in Directive 97/67/EC and therefore cross-subsidization of both the postal SGEI and the PMO SGEI through misallocation of costs is excluded. In any event cross-subsidization cannot be regarded as a stand-alone issue since it can take place only if there is overcompensation caused by either misallocation of costs or inappropriate quantification of the counterfactual scenario. Both are not the case in the present measure as explained below in recital 206. |
| --- | --- |

(172)

Similarly, with regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recitals 37, 38, 60 and 63 that Czech Post voluntarily subsidises the below-cost prices for its non-USO services, such as Balíkovna, and allocates the non-USO activities’ costs and losses to USO activities, as defined by the Czech authorities, the Commission considers, similar to its conclusion in recital 172, that the Czech authorities have demonstrated sufficiently that Czech Post’s accounts have been separated in line with the requirements laid down in Directive 97/67/EC and therefore cross-subsidization of both the postal SGEI and the PMO SGEI through misallocation of costs is excluded. In any event cross-subsidization cannot be regarded as a stand-alone issue since it can take place only if there is overcompensation caused by either misallocation of costs or inappropriate quantification of the counterfactual scenario. Both are not the case in the present measure as explained below in recital 206.

| (173) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 60 that the USO compensation is not in line with the financial transparency requirements set by 2012 SGEI framework because Czech Post has already formally included part of the compensation in the 2019 annual report, the Commission notes that the fact that this item has been recorded in the accounts is not as such related to an infringement of the aforementioned financial transparency requirements concerning separation of accounts. |
| --- | --- |

(173)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 60 that the USO compensation is not in line with the financial transparency requirements set by 2012 SGEI framework because Czech Post has already formally included part of the compensation in the 2019 annual report, the Commission notes that the fact that this item has been recorded in the accounts is not as such related to an infringement of the aforementioned financial transparency requirements concerning separation of accounts.

| (174) | The Commission notes that CZ Post’s accounting system is the same as in the previous entrustment period. The issue of the accounting system was also raised by PNS in the appeal against the 2018 USO Decision in Case T-316/18 (66), where the General Court concluded that the Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the accounting system, in particular of its reliability, and therefore, the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in that respect. |
| --- | --- |

(174)

The Commission notes that CZ Post’s accounting system is the same as in the previous entrustment period. The issue of the accounting system was also raised by PNS in the appeal against the 2018 USO Decision in Case T-316/18 (66), where the General Court concluded that the Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the accounting system, in particular of its reliability, and therefore, the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in that respect.

| (175) | Hence, the Commission concludes that the accounting separation between non-SGEI activities and SGEI activities, as implemented, is appropriate. It follows that Czech Post complies with Directive 2006/111/EC and with paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(175)

Hence, the Commission concludes that the accounting separation between non-SGEI activities and SGEI activities, as implemented, is appropriate. It follows that Czech Post complies with Directive 2006/111/EC and with paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework.

8.2.5.   Compliance with Union public procurement rules

| (176) | According to paragraph 19 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘aid will be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) [TFEU] only where the responsible authority, when entrusting the provision of the service to the undertaking in question, has complied or commits to comply with the applicable Union rules in the area of public procurement. This includes any requirements of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination resulting directly from the [TFEU] and, where applicable, secondary EU legislation. Aid that does not comply with such rules and requirements is considered to affect the development of trade to an extent that would be contrary to the interests of the Union within the meaning of Article 106(2) [TFEU].’. |
| --- | --- |

(176)

According to paragraph 19 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘aid will be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) [TFEU] only where the responsible authority, when entrusting the provision of the service to the undertaking in question, has complied or commits to comply with the applicable Union rules in the area of public procurement. This includes any requirements of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination resulting directly from the [TFEU] and, where applicable, secondary EU legislation. Aid that does not comply with such rules and requirements is considered to affect the development of trade to an extent that would be contrary to the interests of the Union within the meaning of Article 106(2) [TFEU].’.

| (177) | The Postal Services Act stipulates that the USO provider shall be designated through a selection procedure. The CTO conducted in accordance with Section 22 of the Postal Services Act the selection procedure for the postal licence holder for the period 2018-2022. The CTO didn't select any provider in this procedure due to non-fulfilment of the participation conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(177)

The Postal Services Act stipulates that the USO provider shall be designated through a selection procedure. The CTO conducted in accordance with Section 22 of the Postal Services Act the selection procedure for the postal licence holder for the period 2018-2022. The CTO didn't select any provider in this procedure due to non-fulfilment of the participation conditions.

| (178) | The Czech authorities have explained that, following the termination of the unsuccessful selection procedure, they initiated an administrative procedure ex officio to impose on Czech Post the obligation to provide the USO, as provided for in Section 22, paragraph 9 of the Postal Services Act. |
| --- | --- |

(178)

The Czech authorities have explained that, following the termination of the unsuccessful selection procedure, they initiated an administrative procedure ex officio to impose on Czech Post the obligation to provide the USO, as provided for in Section 22, paragraph 9 of the Postal Services Act.

| (179) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 61 and PNS’s claim in recital 65 that the Czech authorities infringed the public procurement rules set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC by intentionally including the PMO service in the scope of the USO, while setting the evaluation/awarding criteria of the tender procedure in favour of Czech Post, the Commission notes that, as the Czech authorities explained, the tender procedure (67) was designed in a way that allowed a number of applicants to take part, even if they could not provide the full portfolio of services, and also allowed a number of postal licences to be awarded for individual services. There was therefore the possibility to designate different providers for the provision of different services included in the scope of USO, in line with Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC. It was also possible for a bidder to bid for individual postal services part of the USO as defined by the law, excluding the PMO services. Furthermore, the CTO allowed all potential applicants to ask questions on the tender conditions and scope, with a view to ensuring maximum transparency and enabling everyone to obtain all necessary information to prepare their bids. In this regard, Zásilkovna did not declare its interest in participating in the tender procedure. In the Commission’s view, the tender procedure was not discriminatory but, on the contrary, it was drawn up in a way to enable any postal services provider to be designated as the universal service provider. |
| --- | --- |

(179)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 61 and PNS’s claim in recital 65 that the Czech authorities infringed the public procurement rules set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC by intentionally including the PMO service in the scope of the USO, while setting the evaluation/awarding criteria of the tender procedure in favour of Czech Post, the Commission notes that, as the Czech authorities explained, the tender procedure (67) was designed in a way that allowed a number of applicants to take part, even if they could not provide the full portfolio of services, and also allowed a number of postal licences to be awarded for individual services. There was therefore the possibility to designate different providers for the provision of different services included in the scope of USO, in line with Article 4(2) of Directive 97/67/EC. It was also possible for a bidder to bid for individual postal services part of the USO as defined by the law, excluding the PMO services. Furthermore, the CTO allowed all potential applicants to ask questions on the tender conditions and scope, with a view to ensuring maximum transparency and enabling everyone to obtain all necessary information to prepare their bids. In this regard, Zásilkovna did not declare its interest in participating in the tender procedure. In the Commission’s view, the tender procedure was not discriminatory but, on the contrary, it was drawn up in a way to enable any postal services provider to be designated as the universal service provider.

| (180) | The Commission considers that it is only in the case that Member States decide to organise a tendering procedure for the selection of the Universal service provider (‘USP’) that public procurement rules would be applicable and that, therefore, the compatibility of the USO financing with the internal market would depend on whether these rules have indeed been observed. In the present case, following an unsuccessful tendering procedure, the Czech authorities finally opted for the direct designation of the incumbent operator as the universal service provider, as allowed by Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC. In doing so, the Czech authorities applied the procedure laid down in Section 22(9) of the Postal Services Act stipulating that the CTO may impose, by virtue of a decision on granting a postal licence, the obligation to provide and arrange for the universal services set out in the announcement of the tendering procedure on the operator who best meets the evaluation criteria. For this reason, the CTO initiated ex officio administrative proceedings with Czech Post on granting a postal licence for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022, as Czech Post best met the criteria set out in the announcement of the tender procedure. It follows that the direct entrustment of Czech Post as the USP of the postal SGEI is in line with paragraph 19 of the 2012 SGEI Framework. The fact that the Czech authorities included the PMO SGEI in the scope of the USO, does not invalidate the lawfulness of the direct entrustment of the postal SGEI, as the Czech authorities carried out a tender procedure which was not successful and only subsequently decided to designate Czech Post as the universal service provider, as it was the provider which met the requirements for the provision of all USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities. In any case, the Commission notes that the Czech authorities may use the negotiated procedure without prior publication where no tenders or no suitable tenders or no requests to participate or no suitable requests to participate have been submitted in a tender according to Article 32(2)a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (68). |
| --- | --- |

(180)

The Commission considers that it is only in the case that Member States decide to organise a tendering procedure for the selection of the Universal service provider (‘USP’) that public procurement rules would be applicable and that, therefore, the compatibility of the USO financing with the internal market would depend on whether these rules have indeed been observed. In the present case, following an unsuccessful tendering procedure, the Czech authorities finally opted for the direct designation of the incumbent operator as the universal service provider, as allowed by Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC. In doing so, the Czech authorities applied the procedure laid down in Section 22(9) of the Postal Services Act stipulating that the CTO may impose, by virtue of a decision on granting a postal licence, the obligation to provide and arrange for the universal services set out in the announcement of the tendering procedure on the operator who best meets the evaluation criteria. For this reason, the CTO initiated ex officio administrative proceedings with Czech Post on granting a postal licence for the period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022, as Czech Post best met the criteria set out in the announcement of the tender procedure. It follows that the direct entrustment of Czech Post as the USP of the postal SGEI is in line with paragraph 19 of the 2012 SGEI Framework. The fact that the Czech authorities included the PMO SGEI in the scope of the USO, does not invalidate the lawfulness of the direct entrustment of the postal SGEI, as the Czech authorities carried out a tender procedure which was not successful and only subsequently decided to designate Czech Post as the universal service provider, as it was the provider which met the requirements for the provision of all USO services, as defined by the Czech authorities. In any case, the Commission notes that the Czech authorities may use the negotiated procedure without prior publication where no tenders or no suitable tenders or no requests to participate or no suitable requests to participate have been submitted in a tender according to Article 32(2)a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (68).

| (181) | As regards the direct award of the PMO SGEI, the Commission considers that the Czech authorities have examined existing networks of postal and financial institutions (see recital 81 above) and concluded that there was no other operator on the market that would provide PMO services on a commercial basis throughout the territory of the Czech Republic, in a manner required for a universal service, thereby complying with the technical specifications set in the tender. PMO SGEI are so specific in their nature and manner of provision that at the moment of carrying the review of the USO there was no substitute provided on the market on a commercial basis. To provide the PMO SGEI, an operator needs to have a dense and sizeable distribution network as well as daily delivery operations, combined with high security guarantees. Other operators did not possess such capabilities, which are necessary to provide the PMO SGEI in line with Czechia State’s requirements. Moreover, no other operator would have been able to develop these capabilities prior to the period 2018-2022. Only Czech Post's network possessed a network of the density, size and quality, which could serve the objectives of the PMO SGEI. Although it cannot be excluded that competitors will develop such a network in the future, Czech Post is the only provider that can offer the PMO SGEI reliably over the period 2018-2012. This is the reason why the Commission recognizes that Czech Post holds a unique logistic and branch network in terms of density, size and daily delivery operations, which makes it the sole possible provider for the PMO SGEI during this period. On this basis, the Commission considers that the direct award of the PMO SGEI can be covered by the sole provider exemption and be entrusted through a negotiated procedure without prior publication according to Article 32(2)b) of Directive 2014/24/EU (69). |
| --- | --- |

(181)

As regards the direct award of the PMO SGEI, the Commission considers that the Czech authorities have examined existing networks of postal and financial institutions (see recital 81 above) and concluded that there was no other operator on the market that would provide PMO services on a commercial basis throughout the territory of the Czech Republic, in a manner required for a universal service, thereby complying with the technical specifications set in the tender. PMO SGEI are so specific in their nature and manner of provision that at the moment of carrying the review of the USO there was no substitute provided on the market on a commercial basis. To provide the PMO SGEI, an operator needs to have a dense and sizeable distribution network as well as daily delivery operations, combined with high security guarantees. Other operators did not possess such capabilities, which are necessary to provide the PMO SGEI in line with Czechia State’s requirements. Moreover, no other operator would have been able to develop these capabilities prior to the period 2018-2022. Only Czech Post's network possessed a network of the density, size and quality, which could serve the objectives of the PMO SGEI. Although it cannot be excluded that competitors will develop such a network in the future, Czech Post is the only provider that can offer the PMO SGEI reliably over the period 2018-2012. This is the reason why the Commission recognizes that Czech Post holds a unique logistic and branch network in terms of density, size and daily delivery operations, which makes it the sole possible provider for the PMO SGEI during this period. On this basis, the Commission considers that the direct award of the PMO SGEI can be covered by the sole provider exemption and be entrusted through a negotiated procedure without prior publication according to Article 32(2)b) of Directive 2014/24/EU (69).

8.2.6.   Absence of discrimination

| (182) | According to paragraph 20 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘where an authority assigns the provision of the same SGEI to several undertakings, the compensation should be calculated on the basis of the same method in respect of each undertaking.’. |
| --- | --- |

(182)

According to paragraph 20 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘where an authority assigns the provision of the same SGEI to several undertakings, the compensation should be calculated on the basis of the same method in respect of each undertaking.’.

| (183) | Since both SGEIs are assigned only to Czech Post, the Commission considers that the requirement of paragraph 20 of the 2012 SGEI Framework is not applicable. |
| --- | --- |

(183)

Since both SGEIs are assigned only to Czech Post, the Commission considers that the requirement of paragraph 20 of the 2012 SGEI Framework is not applicable.

8.2.7.   Amount of compensation

| (184) | According to paragraph 21 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘the amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the net cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit.’ In this respect, paragraph 24 of the 2012 SGEI Framework establishes that ‘the net cost necessary, or expected to be necessary, to discharge the public service obligations should be calculated using the net avoided cost methodology where this is required by Union or national legislation and in other cases where this is possible.’. |
| --- | --- |

(184)

According to paragraph 21 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘the amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the net cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit.’ In this respect, paragraph 24 of the 2012 SGEI Framework establishes that ‘the net cost necessary, or expected to be necessary, to discharge the public service obligations should be calculated using the net avoided cost methodology where this is required by Union or national legislation and in other cases where this is possible.’.

8.2.8.   Calculation of the net cost: Net Avoided Cost methodology

| (185) | According to paragraph 25 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘under the net avoided cost methodology, the net cost necessary, or expected to be necessary, to discharge the public service obligations is calculated as the difference between the net cost for the provider of operating with the public service obligation and the net cost or profit for the same provider of operating without that obligation.’. |
| --- | --- |

(185)

According to paragraph 25 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘under the net avoided cost methodology, the net cost necessary, or expected to be necessary, to discharge the public service obligations is calculated as the difference between the net cost for the provider of operating with the public service obligation and the net cost or profit for the same provider of operating without that obligation.’.

| (186) | Implementing Decree No 466/2012 lays down the procedure used by CTO to calculate the net cost for the provision of the USO, as defined by the Postal Services Act, by Czech Post. |
| --- | --- |

(186)

Implementing Decree No 466/2012 lays down the procedure used by CTO to calculate the net cost for the provision of the USO, as defined by the Postal Services Act, by Czech Post.

| (187) | The NAC methodology used by the Czech authorities is based on four main elements:






  (a) | setting out the factual and counterfactual scenarios; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(187)

The NAC methodology used by the Czech authorities is based on four main elements:

(a)

setting out the factual and counterfactual scenarios;

| (b) | calculation of the impact that the counterfactual scenario would have on costs and revenues of Czech Post; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

calculation of the impact that the counterfactual scenario would have on costs and revenues of Czech Post;

| (c) | calculation of intangible benefits for Czech Post; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

calculation of intangible benefits for Czech Post;

| (d) | calculation of the total net cost. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

calculation of the total net cost.

| (188) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62(f) that the cost allocation methodology is more suitable for calculating the NAC, the Commission notes that, according to paragraph 27 of the SGEI Framework, it considers, ‘the net avoided cost methodology as the most accurate method for determining the cost of a public service obligation’. At the same time, Annex I of Directive 97/67/EC also uses the net avoided cost methodology to determine the net cost for the provision of USO. |
| --- | --- |

(188)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62(f) that the cost allocation methodology is more suitable for calculating the NAC, the Commission notes that, according to paragraph 27 of the SGEI Framework, it considers, ‘the net avoided cost methodology as the most accurate method for determining the cost of a public service obligation’. At the same time, Annex I of Directive 97/67/EC also uses the net avoided cost methodology to determine the net cost for the provision of USO.

I.   The factual and counterfactual scenarios

Factual scenario

| (189) | In the factual scenario, Czech Post's actual revenues and costs for different elements and all activities are taken into account for the years 2018-2020. An estimate of Czech Post's cost and revenues is considered for 2021 and 2022. The use of actual data for the period 2018-2020 and estimated data for 2021 and 2022 is considered to be reasonable and precise since the actual figures are available for the period 2018-2020. Such input data are considered appropriate and apt to exclude overcompensation since they derive from Czech Post’s accounting system which, as explained in recital 176, complies with Directive 2006/111/EC and with paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(189)

In the factual scenario, Czech Post's actual revenues and costs for different elements and all activities are taken into account for the years 2018-2020. An estimate of Czech Post's cost and revenues is considered for 2021 and 2022. The use of actual data for the period 2018-2020 and estimated data for 2021 and 2022 is considered to be reasonable and precise since the actual figures are available for the period 2018-2020. Such input data are considered appropriate and apt to exclude overcompensation since they derive from Czech Post’s accounting system which, as explained in recital 176, complies with Directive 2006/111/EC and with paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework.

Counterfactual scenario

Step 1: Identifying the elements of the USO and DBIS which the company would not operate under normal market conditions

| (190) | The counterfactual scenario considers the behaviour of Czech Post if it were entrusted with neither the USO (postal SGEI and PMO SGEI) nor DBIS. Czech Post has considered the possibilities of business optimisation and made changes in the counterfactual scenario, in comparison to the factual scenario, to the following four elements:






  (a) | DBIS services; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(190)

The counterfactual scenario considers the behaviour of Czech Post if it were entrusted with neither the USO (postal SGEI and PMO SGEI) nor DBIS. Czech Post has considered the possibilities of business optimisation and made changes in the counterfactual scenario, in comparison to the factual scenario, to the following four elements:

(a)

DBIS services;

| (b) | post offices: the requirement of the density of the post office network (number of offices); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

post offices: the requirement of the density of the post office network (number of offices);

| (c) | frequency of delivery: the requirement of widespread delivery in the country's territory with a frequency of 5 work days a week; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

frequency of delivery: the requirement of widespread delivery in the country's territory with a frequency of 5 work days a week;

| (d) | supporting processes: Other administrative duties assigned only to the USO provider (see recital 196). |
| --- | --- |

(d)

supporting processes: Other administrative duties assigned only to the USO provider (see recital 196).

| (191) | With respect to the abovementioned four elements, the Czech authorities submit that Czech Post would: (i) stop providing DBIS services, (ii) close a number of post offices and, in addition, convert a number of them into Postpoints (70), (iii) lower delivery frequency for some postal items, and (iv) stop performing or perform to a lesser extent some administrative activities related to the USO requirements. The four elements of the counterfactual scenario are further presented below: |
| --- | --- |

(191)

With respect to the abovementioned four elements, the Czech authorities submit that Czech Post would: (i) stop providing DBIS services, (ii) close a number of post offices and, in addition, convert a number of them into Postpoints (70), (iii) lower delivery frequency for some postal items, and (iv) stop performing or perform to a lesser extent some administrative activities related to the USO requirements. The four elements of the counterfactual scenario are further presented below:

1.   Termination of DBIS service

| (192) | The introduction of DBIS changed the form of delivery of some postal items, mainly standard and registered letters, (‘cannibalised’ items) from physical to electronic form, for all type of users communicating with the public administration. In the counterfactual scenario, where Czech Post would stop providing DBIS services, the cannibalised postal items would be delivered in the traditional, physical way. On the one hand, Czech Post’s revenues and costs would decrease by DBIS revenues and associated costs and, on the other hand, Czech Post’s revenues and costs would increase due to the recovery of the cannibalised postal items to be delivered physically. The number of postal items in the factual and counterfactual scenarios taking into account the data on the cannibalised items as estimated in recital 152 of the DBIS decision is presented below in Table 5:

  Table 5


  Number of postal items in the factual and counterfactual scenarios, considering the cannibalised items by data mailboxes (DBIS) as estimated in the DBIS decision












  Number of postal items (in thousands) | | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Factual scenario (A) | regular post | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| | registered post | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Cannibalised (B) | regular post | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| | registered post | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Counterfactual scenario (C=A+B) | regular post | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| | registered post | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |

(192)

The introduction of DBIS changed the form of delivery of some postal items, mainly standard and registered letters, (‘cannibalised’ items) from physical to electronic form, for all type of users communicating with the public administration. In the counterfactual scenario, where Czech Post would stop providing DBIS services, the cannibalised postal items would be delivered in the traditional, physical way. On the one hand, Czech Post’s revenues and costs would decrease by DBIS revenues and associated costs and, on the other hand, Czech Post’s revenues and costs would increase due to the recovery of the cannibalised postal items to be delivered physically. The number of postal items in the factual and counterfactual scenarios taking into account the data on the cannibalised items as estimated in recital 152 of the DBIS decision is presented below in Table 5:

Table 5

Number of postal items in the factual and counterfactual scenarios, considering the cannibalised items by data mailboxes (DBIS) as estimated in the DBIS decision

Number of postal items (in thousands)

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Factual scenario (A)

regular post

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

registered post

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Cannibalised (B)

regular post

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

registered post

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Counterfactual scenario (C=A+B)

regular post

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

registered post

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2.   Closure of a number of post offices and conversion of some of them into Postpoints:

| (193) | For the period 2018-2022, Czech Post considers 3 210 post offices to be part of the post office network in the factual scenario. This amount comprises 3 200 obligatory post offices under USO and 10 voluntarily operated situated in special tourist locations (e.g. in the mountains or open-air museums) enabling tourists to send letters or postcards by means of special stamps. Without the USO, Czech Post would operate a less dense network, maintaining only the profitable post offices while taking into account that the postal licence holder is a national postal service provider and deploys its premises in such a way as to ensure the availability of its services throughout the country. Based on its internal accounting system, Czech Post allocates revenues and costs to post offices in order to determine each office’s profitability. Czech Post analysed this information along with a number of operational and accessibility criteria to decide whether a post office would be retained in the counterfactual scenario. Based on Czech Post’s analysis, in the counterfactual scenario, its network would consist of 583 post offices of the obligatory ones that Czech Post operates under the USO, 10 post offices in addition to the obligatory ones and 462 Postpoints. Considering that, in the counterfactual scenario, approximately 80 % of the post offices would be closed, the maximum distance between most (ca. 89%) of the commercial post offices and Postpoints, although it would be longer than that of the factual scenario, it would be less than 10 km. In Czech Post’s view, in such a case the availability of all services offered in post offices (including postal services and PMO services) would be substantially reduced. The number of the obligatory offices to be maintained in the counterfactual scenario is considered constant over the entrustment period and represents the ex ante forward-looking decision for business optimization. Table 6 below shows the post offices network (number of offices) under the factual scenario and counterfactual scenarios:

  Table 6


  Number of post offices under the factual and counterfactual scenarios














  Year | offices in the factual scenario | offices to be closed in the counterfactual scenario | offices in the counterfactual scenario |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total (obligatory + non-obligatory post offices) | obligatory | non - obligatory | remaining from obligatory post offices | remaining from nonobligatory post offices | offices that will be converted into Postpoint | total number of offices |
| | a=b+c | b | c | d= a-h | e | f | g | h=e+f+g |
| 2018 | 3 231 | 3 200 | 31 | 2 155 | 583 | 31 | 462 | 1 076 |
| 2019 | 3 232 | 3 200 | 32 | 2 155 | 583 | 32 | 462 | 1 077 |
| 2020 | 3 237 | 3 200 | 37 | 2 149 | 583 | 37 | 468 | 1 088 |
| 2021 | 3 237 | 3 200 | 37 | 2 149 | 583 | 37 | 468 | 1 088 |
| 2022 | 3 237 | 3 200 | 37 | 2 149 | 583 | 37 | 468 | 1 088 |

(193)

For the period 2018-2022, Czech Post considers 3 210 post offices to be part of the post office network in the factual scenario. This amount comprises 3 200 obligatory post offices under USO and 10 voluntarily operated situated in special tourist locations (e.g. in the mountains or open-air museums) enabling tourists to send letters or postcards by means of special stamps. Without the USO, Czech Post would operate a less dense network, maintaining only the profitable post offices while taking into account that the postal licence holder is a national postal service provider and deploys its premises in such a way as to ensure the availability of its services throughout the country. Based on its internal accounting system, Czech Post allocates revenues and costs to post offices in order to determine each office’s profitability. Czech Post analysed this information along with a number of operational and accessibility criteria to decide whether a post office would be retained in the counterfactual scenario. Based on Czech Post’s analysis, in the counterfactual scenario, its network would consist of 583 post offices of the obligatory ones that Czech Post operates under the USO, 10 post offices in addition to the obligatory ones and 462 Postpoints. Considering that, in the counterfactual scenario, approximately 80 % of the post offices would be closed, the maximum distance between most (ca. 89%) of the commercial post offices and Postpoints, although it would be longer than that of the factual scenario, it would be less than 10 km. In Czech Post’s view, in such a case the availability of all services offered in post offices (including postal services and PMO services) would be substantially reduced. The number of the obligatory offices to be maintained in the counterfactual scenario is considered constant over the entrustment period and represents the ex ante forward-looking decision for business optimization. Table 6 below shows the post offices network (number of offices) under the factual scenario and counterfactual scenarios:

Table 6

Number of post offices under the factual and counterfactual scenarios

Year

offices in the factual scenario

offices to be closed in the counterfactual scenario

offices in the counterfactual scenario

Total (obligatory + non-obligatory post offices)

obligatory

non - obligatory

remaining from obligatory post offices

remaining from nonobligatory post offices

offices that will be converted into Postpoint

total number of offices

a=b+c

b

c

d= a-h

e

f

g

h=e+f+g

2018

3 231

3 200

31

2 155

583

31

462

1 076

2019

3 232

3 200

32

2 155

583

32

462

1 077

2020

3 237

3 200

37

2 149

583

37

468

1 088

2021

3 237

3 200

37

2 149

583

37

468

1 088

2022

3 237

3 200

37

2 149

583

37

468

1 088

3.   Lower delivery frequency of specific postal items

| (194) | The Czech authorities have explained that a lower delivery frequency of letters would mean going from five days per week to five days per two weeks. The market of parcel delivery is sufficiently competitive and therefore delivery frequency would not be reduced for parcels. The Czech authorities also explained that, over 2018-2022, changes in the delivery of letters were expected. In the factual scenario, a new regime of delivery was introduced in 2020. Existing D+1 (71) delivery will be extended with D+n delivery and a transfer of majority of demand to D+n delivery is presumed, because customers prefer saving delivery costs over the speed of delivery. In the counterfactual scenario, the offer consists of D+n delivery. The frequency and number of letters delivered at individual premises (i.e. households) were examined by Czech Post, as part of a nationwide monitoring exercise. Table 6a and Table 6b below show the required labour in full-time equivalent (FTE) as well as the number of vehicles required in the factual scenario and in the counterfactual scenario for a delivery of five days per two weeks.

  Table 7a


  Delivery network in 2018









  2018 | FTE | number of vehicles | transport (in km) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Factual scenario (D+1) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Counterfactual scenario (D+n) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| difference | [2 000 -2 500 ] | [750 -900 ] | [10 000 000 - 15 000 000 ] |

(194)

The Czech authorities have explained that a lower delivery frequency of letters would mean going from five days per week to five days per two weeks. The market of parcel delivery is sufficiently competitive and therefore delivery frequency would not be reduced for parcels. The Czech authorities also explained that, over 2018-2022, changes in the delivery of letters were expected. In the factual scenario, a new regime of delivery was introduced in 2020. Existing D+1 (71) delivery will be extended with D+n delivery and a transfer of majority of demand to D+n delivery is presumed, because customers prefer saving delivery costs over the speed of delivery. In the counterfactual scenario, the offer consists of D+n delivery. The frequency and number of letters delivered at individual premises (i.e. households) were examined by Czech Post, as part of a nationwide monitoring exercise. Table 6a and Table 6b below show the required labour in full-time equivalent (FTE) as well as the number of vehicles required in the factual scenario and in the counterfactual scenario for a delivery of five days per two weeks.

Table 7a

Delivery network in 2018

2018

FTE

number of vehicles

transport (in km)

Factual scenario (D+1)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Counterfactual scenario (D+n)

[...]

[...]

[...]

difference

[2 000 -2 500 ]

[750 -900 ]

[10 000 000 - 15 000 000 ]

Table 7b

Delivery network in 2019

| 2019 | FTE | number of vehicles | transport (in km) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Factual scenario (D+1) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Counterfactual scenario (D+n) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| difference | [2 000 -2 500 ] | [750 -900 ] | [11 000 000 - 16 000 000 ] |

2019

FTE

number of vehicles

transport (in km)

Factual scenario (D+1)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Counterfactual scenario (D+n)

[...]

[...]

[...]

difference

[2 000 -2 500 ]

[750 -900 ]

[11 000 000 - 16 000 000 ]

Table 7c

Delivery network in 2020, 2021 and 2022

| 2020, 2021, 2022 | FTE | number of vehicles | transport (in km) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Factual scenario (D+n, D+1) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Counterfactual scenario (D+n) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Difference | [350 -500 ] | [700 -850 ] | [11 000 000 - 16 000 000 ] |

2020, 2021, 2022

FTE

number of vehicles

transport (in km)

Factual scenario (D+n, D+1)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Counterfactual scenario (D+n)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Difference

[350 -500 ]

[700 -850 ]

[11 000 000 - 16 000 000 ]

4.   Fewer administrative activities

| (195) | Czech Post would also stop performing certain administrative activities related to the provision of the USO. The administrative activities related to the provision of the USO that Czech Post would discontinue under the counterfactual scenario are the following:






  (a) | measuring and reporting to the regulator of transport time and transport flows; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(195)

Czech Post would also stop performing certain administrative activities related to the provision of the USO. The administrative activities related to the provision of the USO that Czech Post would discontinue under the counterfactual scenario are the following:

(a)

measuring and reporting to the regulator of transport time and transport flows;

| (b) | keeping detailed separate records of costs and revenues, calculating the USO net cost and reporting this to the regulator; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

keeping detailed separate records of costs and revenues, calculating the USO net cost and reporting this to the regulator;

| (c) | auditing separate records; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

auditing separate records;

| (d) | purchasing source documents for the calculation of the USO net cost; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

purchasing source documents for the calculation of the USO net cost;

| (e) | operating the department of postal technologies responsible for the development of qualitative USO requirements into operational standards, the monitoring of the quality of services and arrangement of corrective measures. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

operating the department of postal technologies responsible for the development of qualitative USO requirements into operational standards, the monitoring of the quality of services and arrangement of corrective measures.

Plausibility and quantification of the counterfactual scenario

| (196) | As regards the plausibility of a counterfactual scenario in which the post office network would be significantly downsized, the Czech authorities explained that Czech Post operates several types of postal establishments, from small post offices operating a single counter in small municipalities to large post offices with many counters located in large cities. The number of customers served by a specific post office depends on its size. The greatest number of customers is served by large and medium-sized post offices located in densely populated areas. Those post offices are mostly maintained in the counterfactual scenario. On the other hand, small post offices serving smaller numbers of customers would not be maintained in the counterfactual scenario. In the Czech authorities’ view, a simplified assumption that closing 81,5 % post offices (usually smaller and loss-making) will result in a transfer of 81,5 % of the demand to the remaining post offices is incorrect and does not correspond to the situation in Czechia. The financial data show that the 583 post offices which are maintained in the counterfactual scenario generate [50-75] % of revenues (demand) of the total amount of revenues recorded at the post offices in 2018. The total of 2 155 post offices to be closed generate only [15-35] % of revenues in 2018, and the ratios is similar in other years. Some of the revenues from post offices to be closed are transferred to Postpoints, because this is to where the customers’ demand for registered letters and parcels is shifted, the remaining part of the demand will be lost by Czech Post because some of the customers will stop using its services, including PMO. As regards PMO, [30-55] % of the revenues generated in the closed offices would get lost . Finally, the overall impact on the demand was estimated not only on the basis of the results of a survey but also from other facts, such as the distance to the nearest post office and availability of a similar service on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(196)

As regards the plausibility of a counterfactual scenario in which the post office network would be significantly downsized, the Czech authorities explained that Czech Post operates several types of postal establishments, from small post offices operating a single counter in small municipalities to large post offices with many counters located in large cities. The number of customers served by a specific post office depends on its size. The greatest number of customers is served by large and medium-sized post offices located in densely populated areas. Those post offices are mostly maintained in the counterfactual scenario. On the other hand, small post offices serving smaller numbers of customers would not be maintained in the counterfactual scenario. In the Czech authorities’ view, a simplified assumption that closing 81,5 % post offices (usually smaller and loss-making) will result in a transfer of 81,5 % of the demand to the remaining post offices is incorrect and does not correspond to the situation in Czechia. The financial data show that the 583 post offices which are maintained in the counterfactual scenario generate [50-75] % of revenues (demand) of the total amount of revenues recorded at the post offices in 2018. The total of 2 155 post offices to be closed generate only [15-35] % of revenues in 2018, and the ratios is similar in other years. Some of the revenues from post offices to be closed are transferred to Postpoints, because this is to where the customers’ demand for registered letters and parcels is shifted, the remaining part of the demand will be lost by Czech Post because some of the customers will stop using its services, including PMO. As regards PMO, [30-55] % of the revenues generated in the closed offices would get lost . Finally, the overall impact on the demand was estimated not only on the basis of the results of a survey but also from other facts, such as the distance to the nearest post office and availability of a similar service on the market.

| (197) | As regards the demand effect of reducing the delivery frequency, the Czech authorities explained that CTO took into account several circumstances that could have affected the change in demand, and not only the market survey (see recital 90). For example, the extent to which services substitutable to letter delivery are available was another important element. While delivery of express parcels is offered by several providers in Czechia, guaranteed delivery of letters under a D+1 model is offered only by courier services. It is expected that individual customers will generally not make the switch to courier services or electronic communication in order to obtain D+1 delivery. Instead, they would switch to D+n delivery service. Individual customers can use courier services or electronic communication, but the reason for using those services instead of sending letters will likely be different and unrelated to a change in the delivery frequency from D+1 to D+n, because even a consignment delivered under the D+1 model cannot compete with electronic communication in terms of speed and price; moreover, courier services are much more expensive. Czech Post changed the delivery frequency in February 2020 and offers ‘economy consignments’ with D+n delivery and ‘priority consignments’ with D+1 delivery. Economy consignments are CZK 7 cheaper than priority consignments (this difference applies to both standard and registered letters). According to Czech Post’s data on the ratio of economy and priority consignments for the period from February to May 2020, presented in Table 7, most customers prefer lower prices to faster, but more expensive, delivery (approximately [93-96] % of customers choose the economy model for standard letters and approximately [82-87] % for registered letters), which corresponds to the survey results.

  Table 8


  Ratio of priority and economy consignments (all customers)











  Product | Service model | February 2020 | March 2020 | April 2020 | May 2020 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Standard letters | Priority | [5 -7 ] % | [5 -7 ] % | [3,5 -6,5 ] % | [3,5 -6,5 ] % |
| Economy | [93 -95 ] % | [93 -95 ] % | [93,5 -96,5 ] % | [93,5 -96,5 ] % |
| Registered letters | Priority | [13 -18 ] % | [13 -18 ] % | [13 -18 ] % | [13 -18 ] % |
| Economy | [82 -87 ] % | [82 -87 ] % | [82 -87 ] % | [82 -87 ] % |

(197)

As regards the demand effect of reducing the delivery frequency, the Czech authorities explained that CTO took into account several circumstances that could have affected the change in demand, and not only the market survey (see recital 90). For example, the extent to which services substitutable to letter delivery are available was another important element. While delivery of express parcels is offered by several providers in Czechia, guaranteed delivery of letters under a D+1 model is offered only by courier services. It is expected that individual customers will generally not make the switch to courier services or electronic communication in order to obtain D+1 delivery. Instead, they would switch to D+n delivery service. Individual customers can use courier services or electronic communication, but the reason for using those services instead of sending letters will likely be different and unrelated to a change in the delivery frequency from D+1 to D+n, because even a consignment delivered under the D+1 model cannot compete with electronic communication in terms of speed and price; moreover, courier services are much more expensive. Czech Post changed the delivery frequency in February 2020 and offers ‘economy consignments’ with D+n delivery and ‘priority consignments’ with D+1 delivery. Economy consignments are CZK 7 cheaper than priority consignments (this difference applies to both standard and registered letters). According to Czech Post’s data on the ratio of economy and priority consignments for the period from February to May 2020, presented in Table 7, most customers prefer lower prices to faster, but more expensive, delivery (approximately [93-96] % of customers choose the economy model for standard letters and approximately [82-87] % for registered letters), which corresponds to the survey results.

Table 8

Ratio of priority and economy consignments (all customers)

Product

Service model

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

Standard letters

Priority

[5 -7 ] %

[5 -7 ] %

[3,5 -6,5 ] %

[3,5 -6,5 ] %

Economy

[93 -95 ] %

[93 -95 ] %

[93,5 -96,5 ] %

[93,5 -96,5 ] %

Registered letters

Priority

[13 -18 ] %

[13 -18 ] %

[13 -18 ] %

[13 -18 ] %

Economy

[82 -87 ] %

[82 -87 ] %

[82 -87 ] %

[82 -87 ] %

| (198) | With regard to PNS’s claim in recital 67 that Czech Post decided to voluntarily operate a number of post offices until 2016, the Commission notes that Czech Post’s decision to voluntarily operate a number of offices over 2013-2015 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Czech Post should have opted for the same approach over 2018-2020. Furthermore, as the Czech authorities explained in recital 85, the decision of Czech Post to maintain temporarily these post offices made sense economically in view of the at the time imminent political decision to increase the number of obligatory offices to 3 200. The Commission also notes that, in principle, Member States are not obliged to use the same counterfactual scenario in every notification of USO compensation but they have discretion to adapt it according to market developments. Such market developments are realistically reflected in the cost and revenues of each post office as those have been considered in the analysis determining which office should close and which should remain open in the counterfactual scenario. In any event, the deciding factor however is whether the selected counterfactual scenario has been quantified properly, in a realistic manner, as explained in recitals 205 and 206 below. |
| --- | --- |

(198)

With regard to PNS’s claim in recital 67 that Czech Post decided to voluntarily operate a number of post offices until 2016, the Commission notes that Czech Post’s decision to voluntarily operate a number of offices over 2013-2015 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Czech Post should have opted for the same approach over 2018-2020. Furthermore, as the Czech authorities explained in recital 85, the decision of Czech Post to maintain temporarily these post offices made sense economically in view of the at the time imminent political decision to increase the number of obligatory offices to 3 200. The Commission also notes that, in principle, Member States are not obliged to use the same counterfactual scenario in every notification of USO compensation but they have discretion to adapt it according to market developments. Such market developments are realistically reflected in the cost and revenues of each post office as those have been considered in the analysis determining which office should close and which should remain open in the counterfactual scenario. In any event, the deciding factor however is whether the selected counterfactual scenario has been quantified properly, in a realistic manner, as explained in recitals 205 and 206 below.

| (199) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62, and PNS’s claim in recitals 71 and 72, that Czech Post is not a well-run undertaking since it does not precisely explain and justify the necessity of all costs required to discharge the obligation in an efficient manner, the Commission notes that Czech Post’s expenditure is monitored by the Ministry of the Interior, while in parallel Czech Post has put in place its own internal Corporate Compliance Programme against corruption and other forms of misconduct and where, despite all the measures in place, there are doubts about the award of a particular contract, that issue is brought to the attention of the competent authorities such as the Municipal Court in Prague. Therefore, the Commission considers that Zàsilkovna has not demonstrated that Czech Post is not a well-run undertaking. Furthermore, the Commission reiterates its conclusion in recital 175 that the accounting separation between non-SGEI activities and SGEI activities as implemented complies with Directive 2006/111/EC and with paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework. Thus the NAC calculation indeed factors in only the necessary Czech Post’s costs to discharge the obligation. In addition, the net cost methodology does not take account only costs, which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, as this would imply that the measure in question would not provide an advantage for the undertaking in question (the fourth Altmark criterion would be also met – recitals 120 and 121). Finally, the Commission notes that the direct award of the 2021 census to Czech Post, referred to in recital 72, is not covered by the scope of the present decision. |
| --- | --- |

(199)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62, and PNS’s claim in recitals 71 and 72, that Czech Post is not a well-run undertaking since it does not precisely explain and justify the necessity of all costs required to discharge the obligation in an efficient manner, the Commission notes that Czech Post’s expenditure is monitored by the Ministry of the Interior, while in parallel Czech Post has put in place its own internal Corporate Compliance Programme against corruption and other forms of misconduct and where, despite all the measures in place, there are doubts about the award of a particular contract, that issue is brought to the attention of the competent authorities such as the Municipal Court in Prague. Therefore, the Commission considers that Zàsilkovna has not demonstrated that Czech Post is not a well-run undertaking. Furthermore, the Commission reiterates its conclusion in recital 175 that the accounting separation between non-SGEI activities and SGEI activities as implemented complies with Directive 2006/111/EC and with paragraph 44 of the 2012 SGEI Framework. Thus the NAC calculation indeed factors in only the necessary Czech Post’s costs to discharge the obligation. In addition, the net cost methodology does not take account only costs, which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided within the same sector would incur, as this would imply that the measure in question would not provide an advantage for the undertaking in question (the fourth Altmark criterion would be also met – recitals 120 and 121). Finally, the Commission notes that the direct award of the 2021 census to Czech Post, referred to in recital 72, is not covered by the scope of the present decision.

| (200) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62, and PNS’s claims in recitals 44, 45 and 69, that Czech Post does not subtract from the final NAC losses, which it voluntarily incurred by providing its non-USO services for prices below cost, the Commission notes that, in principle, discounts can be granted even for USO services. Directive 97/67/EC provides, in Article 12 thereof, that prices should be cost-oriented. However, products falling outside the scope of the universal service are not covered by the cost-orientation obligation and Czech Post is free to determine their prices, based on demand and supply. In any event, in addition to the complainants’ claims regarding non-USO products, the Commission assessed the discounted prices also of the USO products and found that based on information submitted by the Czech authorities, the voluntarily discounted prices of the USO products are higher than their respective average variable costs and, as such, do not have any undue impact on the NAC. Finally, the Commission notes that the allocation of the costs, either fixed or variable, to the various products are not related to the price of each product, being either discounted or not. Since the costs of each product are resource-consumption-oriented and not price-oriented, the cost allocation methodology and respective allocation keys are the determinant elements for the allocation of the costs to each product. However, as explained in recitals 169 to 172, the Commission found that the cost allocation methodology and respective allocation keys are in line with Directive 97/67/EC, national law and rules approved by the CTO, as certified by an independent auditor for the period 2018-2020. The Commission therefore concludes that Czech Post does not allocate unduly costs of non-USO products to costs of USO products in order to increase the NAC. |
| --- | --- |

(200)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62, and PNS’s claims in recitals 44, 45 and 69, that Czech Post does not subtract from the final NAC losses, which it voluntarily incurred by providing its non-USO services for prices below cost, the Commission notes that, in principle, discounts can be granted even for USO services. Directive 97/67/EC provides, in Article 12 thereof, that prices should be cost-oriented. However, products falling outside the scope of the universal service are not covered by the cost-orientation obligation and Czech Post is free to determine their prices, based on demand and supply. In any event, in addition to the complainants’ claims regarding non-USO products, the Commission assessed the discounted prices also of the USO products and found that based on information submitted by the Czech authorities, the voluntarily discounted prices of the USO products are higher than their respective average variable costs and, as such, do not have any undue impact on the NAC. Finally, the Commission notes that the allocation of the costs, either fixed or variable, to the various products are not related to the price of each product, being either discounted or not. Since the costs of each product are resource-consumption-oriented and not price-oriented, the cost allocation methodology and respective allocation keys are the determinant elements for the allocation of the costs to each product. However, as explained in recitals 169 to 172, the Commission found that the cost allocation methodology and respective allocation keys are in line with Directive 97/67/EC, national law and rules approved by the CTO, as certified by an independent auditor for the period 2018-2020. The Commission therefore concludes that Czech Post does not allocate unduly costs of non-USO products to costs of USO products in order to increase the NAC.

| (201) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62, and PNS’s claim in recital 69, that the massive reduction of post offices is completely unrealistic and against the market trends, and that it has not been quantified properly, the Commission reiterates its comments in recital 197 that in the counterfactual scenario the estimated demand effect not only of the USO business, as defined by the Czech authorities, but also of the non-USO business, is reliable. Moreover, in response to the rapid development of the pick-up outlet segment (the segment is growing year on year by 70 – 100 % and currently makes up approximately 20 % of the distribution of goods from online shops), Czech Post introduced a similar low-cost product called Balík Do balíkovny (Package Delivery to Package Pick-Up Outlet), which shows that the conversion of the post offices into Postpoints is in line with the development of the market. |
| --- | --- |

(201)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 62, and PNS’s claim in recital 69, that the massive reduction of post offices is completely unrealistic and against the market trends, and that it has not been quantified properly, the Commission reiterates its comments in recital 197 that in the counterfactual scenario the estimated demand effect not only of the USO business, as defined by the Czech authorities, but also of the non-USO business, is reliable. Moreover, in response to the rapid development of the pick-up outlet segment (the segment is growing year on year by 70 – 100 % and currently makes up approximately 20 % of the distribution of goods from online shops), Czech Post introduced a similar low-cost product called Balík Do balíkovny (Package Delivery to Package Pick-Up Outlet), which shows that the conversion of the post offices into Postpoints is in line with the development of the market.

| (202) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 66, and PNS’s claim in recital 72, that the reduction in delivery frequency is the actual situation of Czech Post which has not been taken into account in the quantification of the respective demand effect, the Commission notes that, even with the new two-speed delivery system, Czech Post continues to be obliged to deliver every day when this is requested and paid for by customers. In the counterfactual, such deliveries will not take place anymore. In any case, the Czech authorities distinguished, in the NAC calculations, the periods before and after the introduction of the two-speed delivery, while the quantification of the respective demand effect was based on a proper market survey and supported by recent observations concerning customers trends. |
| --- | --- |

(202)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 66, and PNS’s claim in recital 72, that the reduction in delivery frequency is the actual situation of Czech Post which has not been taken into account in the quantification of the respective demand effect, the Commission notes that, even with the new two-speed delivery system, Czech Post continues to be obliged to deliver every day when this is requested and paid for by customers. In the counterfactual, such deliveries will not take place anymore. In any case, the Czech authorities distinguished, in the NAC calculations, the periods before and after the introduction of the two-speed delivery, while the quantification of the respective demand effect was based on a proper market survey and supported by recent observations concerning customers trends.

| (203) | With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 36 that Czech Post has been overcompensated for the USO from 2013 to 2017 and used the excessive compensation to cross-subsidise its commercial activities, the Commission notes that the USO compensation from 2013 to 2017 was approved with the 2018 USO Decision which was upheld by the General Court in Case T-316/18 (72). As this decision was not appealed, the Commission’s findings in that decision stand and are final. |
| --- | --- |

(203)

With regard to Zàsilkovna’s claim in recital 36 that Czech Post has been overcompensated for the USO from 2013 to 2017 and used the excessive compensation to cross-subsidise its commercial activities, the Commission notes that the USO compensation from 2013 to 2017 was approved with the 2018 USO Decision which was upheld by the General Court in Case T-316/18 (72). As this decision was not appealed, the Commission’s findings in that decision stand and are final.

| (204) | The Commission notes that, in the course of the formal investigation procedure, Czechia reviewed the notified NAC calculations by considering more conservative assumptions in the counterfactual scenario (i.e. lowering the NAC). In particular, Czechia assumed: (i) higher capacity enhancement in the remaining commercial post offices to process the diverted demand from the closed offices; and (ii) higher revenue losses due to a more conservative interpretation of the results of the market surveys. Czechia also took into account in the factual scenario, where available, actual data, instead of forecasted data, which rendered the NAC calculations more realistic; demonstrated with proxy calculations that Czech Post would make additional cost savings in its collection/delivery operations, without however considering such cost savings in the NAC calculations; it demonstrated that the voluntarily discounted prices of USO items offered to large customers are still higher than the respective average variable costs and thus, they do not have any undue impact on the NAC; and it considered correctly the DBIS NAC, updated with the actual data, in the calculation of the USO NAC. As a result, Czechia decreased the notified total 2018-2022 NAC from CZK 12 300 433 665 to CZK 9 996 852 907, an adjustment of minus 18,73 %, as presented in detail for each year in the Table 9:

  Table 9


  NAC notified vs NAC adjusted












  Amounts in CZK | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Total
  2018-2022 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NAC notified | 2 694 652 078 | 2 967 587 686 | 2 100 283 382 | 2 230 483 704 | 2 307 426 815 | 12 300 433 665 |
| NAC adjusted | 2 402 212 803 | 2 498 215 225 | 1 631 363 967 | 1 723 251 833 | 1 741 809 079 | 9 996 852 907 |
| adjustment % | -10,85  % | -15,82  % | -22,33  % | -22,74  % | -24,51  % | -18,73  % |

(204)

The Commission notes that, in the course of the formal investigation procedure, Czechia reviewed the notified NAC calculations by considering more conservative assumptions in the counterfactual scenario (i.e. lowering the NAC). In particular, Czechia assumed: (i) higher capacity enhancement in the remaining commercial post offices to process the diverted demand from the closed offices; and (ii) higher revenue losses due to a more conservative interpretation of the results of the market surveys. Czechia also took into account in the factual scenario, where available, actual data, instead of forecasted data, which rendered the NAC calculations more realistic; demonstrated with proxy calculations that Czech Post would make additional cost savings in its collection/delivery operations, without however considering such cost savings in the NAC calculations; it demonstrated that the voluntarily discounted prices of USO items offered to large customers are still higher than the respective average variable costs and thus, they do not have any undue impact on the NAC; and it considered correctly the DBIS NAC, updated with the actual data, in the calculation of the USO NAC. As a result, Czechia decreased the notified total 2018-2022 NAC from CZK 12 300 433 665 to CZK 9 996 852 907, an adjustment of minus 18,73 %, as presented in detail for each year in the Table 9:

Table 9

NAC notified vs NAC adjusted

Amounts in CZK

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

Total

2018-2022

NAC notified

2 694 652 078

2 967 587 686

2 100 283 382

2 230 483 704

2 307 426 815

12 300 433 665

NAC adjusted

2 402 212 803

2 498 215 225

1 631 363 967

1 723 251 833

1 741 809 079

9 996 852 907

adjustment %

-10,85  %

-15,82  %

-22,33  %

-22,74  %

-24,51  %

-18,73  %

| (205) | In light of the above the Commission considers that the counterfactual scenario described is credible and based on rational assumptions that reflect the effort of Czech Post to optimise its business by saving costs and increasing revenues, while the demand effect on Czech Post’s services has been estimated properly, contrary to what the complainants claim in recitals 62(c) and 68. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the explanations that Czech Post provided as explained in recitals 73 to 80, and the Czech authorities as explained in recitals 81 to 93 and 197 to 198, are sensible and sufficient to dispel the doubts the Commission expressed in the opening decision. Under market conditions, it is understandable that Czech Post would close those postal offices which are loss-making and maintain those that are profitable. The Commission considers a comparison of the postal network in the counterfactual scenario with the ones of complainants not meaningful because the so called ‘post offices’ of the complainants are mainly sales points (e.g. newspaper stands) and pick-up points (i.e. third party commission-based premises) that cannot be regarded equivalent to post offices within the meaning of the Postal Services Act. These sales points do not meet the relevant requirements provided in the national legislation and they cannot offer the full range of USO services. In the same vein, it is also logical that the frequency of delivery would change in order to adapt to the market conditions and the need to decrease losses. Although a lower frequency of delivery and a reduction in the network of post offices would have a negative impact in the demand, this is taken into account by the Czech authorities in the design of the counterfactual scenario. |
| --- | --- |

(205)

In light of the above the Commission considers that the counterfactual scenario described is credible and based on rational assumptions that reflect the effort of Czech Post to optimise its business by saving costs and increasing revenues, while the demand effect on Czech Post’s services has been estimated properly, contrary to what the complainants claim in recitals 62(c) and 68. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the explanations that Czech Post provided as explained in recitals 73 to 80, and the Czech authorities as explained in recitals 81 to 93 and 197 to 198, are sensible and sufficient to dispel the doubts the Commission expressed in the opening decision. Under market conditions, it is understandable that Czech Post would close those postal offices which are loss-making and maintain those that are profitable. The Commission considers a comparison of the postal network in the counterfactual scenario with the ones of complainants not meaningful because the so called ‘post offices’ of the complainants are mainly sales points (e.g. newspaper stands) and pick-up points (i.e. third party commission-based premises) that cannot be regarded equivalent to post offices within the meaning of the Postal Services Act. These sales points do not meet the relevant requirements provided in the national legislation and they cannot offer the full range of USO services. In the same vein, it is also logical that the frequency of delivery would change in order to adapt to the market conditions and the need to decrease losses. Although a lower frequency of delivery and a reduction in the network of post offices would have a negative impact in the demand, this is taken into account by the Czech authorities in the design of the counterfactual scenario.

II.   Calculation of the impact of the counterfactual scenario on costs and revenues of Czech Post

Step 1: Identifying the impact on costs and revenues from closing certain post offices and termination of DBIS services in the counterfactual scenario

| (206) | It is necessary to ascertain the amount of costs and revenues which correspond to the cancelled activities and network elements. The source of this information is internal accounting of Czech Post, i.e. separate accounting records of costs and revenues, specifically the costs and revenues recognised at individual cost pools (cost centres). The ABC method is used. If the activity in question were not carried out, or if a certain network element were not operated, the costs associated with this would be saved. The costs associated with the operation of individual post offices are recorded at separate cost centres. Each post office has individual records in its accounting of all costs for the running of the building and its equipment and for maintenance and repairs, of all personnel costs for counter staff and of other direct costs associated with the provision of certain services (for example, the use of labels, tokens of value, fees for access to external databases etc.). The revenues for postal and non-postal services provided by postal offices are also recorded in the accounting of individual post offices. Furthermore, the revenues from a post office are recorded in the accounting of its cost pool (in full), irrespective of the fact that these revenues also cover the costs of other parts of the postal chain (i.e., sorting, transport, and delivery). The revenues from postal services are divided into these parts of the postal chain to be able to compare the cost of the postal offices with the relevant part of revenues generated by those offices. The purpose is to judge whether a certain post office is profitable or not, which is important to assess whether this post office would be maintained in the counterfactual (alternative) scenario. |
| --- | --- |

(206)

It is necessary to ascertain the amount of costs and revenues which correspond to the cancelled activities and network elements. The source of this information is internal accounting of Czech Post, i.e. separate accounting records of costs and revenues, specifically the costs and revenues recognised at individual cost pools (cost centres). The ABC method is used. If the activity in question were not carried out, or if a certain network element were not operated, the costs associated with this would be saved. The costs associated with the operation of individual post offices are recorded at separate cost centres. Each post office has individual records in its accounting of all costs for the running of the building and its equipment and for maintenance and repairs, of all personnel costs for counter staff and of other direct costs associated with the provision of certain services (for example, the use of labels, tokens of value, fees for access to external databases etc.). The revenues for postal and non-postal services provided by postal offices are also recorded in the accounting of individual post offices. Furthermore, the revenues from a post office are recorded in the accounting of its cost pool (in full), irrespective of the fact that these revenues also cover the costs of other parts of the postal chain (i.e., sorting, transport, and delivery). The revenues from postal services are divided into these parts of the postal chain to be able to compare the cost of the postal offices with the relevant part of revenues generated by those offices. The purpose is to judge whether a certain post office is profitable or not, which is important to assess whether this post office would be maintained in the counterfactual (alternative) scenario.

| (207) | Tables 10 – 14 compare the cost of post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios and identify the avoided costs from the reduction proposed in the counterfactual for the period 2018-2022.

  Table 10


  Comparison of the cost of all post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios (year 2018)









  Cost of post offices (2018), in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | Obligatory offices under USO, of which: |

(207)

Tables 10 – 14 compare the cost of post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios and identify the avoided costs from the reduction proposed in the counterfactual for the period 2018-2022.

Table 10

Comparison of the cost of all post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios (year 2018)

Cost of post offices (2018), in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

(1)

Obligatory offices under USO, of which:

[...]

| (a) | Post offices to be closed |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Post offices to be closed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b1) | Remaining post offices |
| --- | --- |

(b1)

Remaining post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b2) | Post offices changed to Postpoints |
| --- | --- |

(b2)

Post offices changed to Postpoints

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (2) | Non-obligatory post offices |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Non-obligatory post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total cost

[...]

[...]

1 971 954 710

Table 11

Comparison of the cost of all post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios (year 2019)

| Cost of post offices (2019), in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | Obligatory offices under USO, of which: |

Cost of post offices (2019), in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

(1)

Obligatory offices under USO, of which:

[...]

| (a) | Post offices to be closed |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Post offices to be closed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b1) | Remaining post offices |
| --- | --- |

(b1)

Remaining post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b2) | Post offices changed to Postpoints |
| --- | --- |

(b2)

Post offices changed to Postpoints

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (2) | Non-obligatory post offices |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Non-obligatory post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total cost

[...]

[...]

2 068 972 772

Table 12

Comparison of the cost of all post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios (year 2020)

| Cost of post offices (2020), in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | Obligatory offices under USO, of which: |

Cost of post offices (2020), in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

(1)

Obligatory offices under USO, of which:

[...]

| (a) | Post offices to be closed |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Post offices to be closed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b1) | Remaining post offices |
| --- | --- |

(b1)

Remaining post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b2) | Post offices changed to Postpoints |
| --- | --- |

(b2)

Post offices changed to Postpoints

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (2) | Non-obligatory post offices |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Non-obligatory post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total cost

[...]

[...]

2 087 416 256

Table 13

Comparison of the cost of all post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios (year 2021)

| Cost of post offices (2021), in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | Obligatory offices under USO, of which: |

Cost of post offices (2021), in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

(1)

Obligatory offices under USO, of which:

[...]

| (a) | Post offices to be closed |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Post offices to be closed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b1) | Remaining post offices |
| --- | --- |

(b1)

Remaining post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b2) | Post offices changed to Postpoint |
| --- | --- |

(b2)

Post offices changed to Postpoint

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (2) | Non-obligatory post offices |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Non-obligatory post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total cost

[...]

[...]

2 092 609 307

Table 14

Comparison of the cost of all post offices in the factual and counterfactual scenarios (year 2022)

| Cost of post offices (2022), in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (1) | Obligatory offices under USO, of which: |

Cost of post offices (2022), in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

(1)

Obligatory offices under USO, of which:

[...]

| (a) | Post offices to be closed |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Post offices to be closed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b1) | Remaining post offices |
| --- | --- |

(b1)

Remaining post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (b2) | Post offices changed to Postpoint |
| --- | --- |

(b2)

Post offices changed to Postpoint

[...]

[...]

[...]

| (2) | Non-obligatory post offices |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Non-obligatory post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total cost

[...]

[...]

2 102 282 619

| (208) | However, it cannot be expected that all the estimated cost savings from the proposed closure of certain post offices and termination of DBIS services in the counterfactual scenario can be achieved in full. When a post office is closed or the DBIS service is no longer provided, the demand for the services provided by that office does not disappear entirely while the postal items that have been cannibalised by DBIS would continue to be delivered by traditional post (i.e. on paper) in the counterfactual scenario. This change in demand affects both the costs and revenues and therefore has to be taken into account in the counterfactual scenario. To model how demand would change, the Czech authorities have explained that they have used market surveys and the analysis presented in the DBIS decision (see recital 193). According to the conducted surveys, some customers would choose to continue to use the services of Czech Post after the closure of their post office and would meet their demand for services at a different post office. Nevertheless, some demand would inevitably be lost as certain customers would switch to other competitors and some customers would choose to reduce their demand. As a result, Czech Post would lose revenue from SGEI and non-SGEI services. The quantification of the expected decline in revenue due to the modification of demand further to the closure of post offices is shown below in Table 15.

  Table 15


  Decline in revenues (2018-2022)











  Year | Revenues - factual scenario | Revenues - counterfactual scenario | Revenues decline (USO impact) | Revenues increase (DBIS impact) | Difference in revenues |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2018 (2 135 closed post offices + 462 Postpoints) | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 509 492 440 |
| 2019 (2 155 closed post offices + 462 Postpoints) | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 567 578 636 |
| 2020 (2 149 closed post offices + 462 Postpoints) | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 825 285 436 |
| 2021 (2 149 closed post offices + 468 Postpoints) | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 667 351 242 |
| 2022 (2 149 closed post offices + 468 Postpoints) | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 769 075 085 |

(208)

However, it cannot be expected that all the estimated cost savings from the proposed closure of certain post offices and termination of DBIS services in the counterfactual scenario can be achieved in full. When a post office is closed or the DBIS service is no longer provided, the demand for the services provided by that office does not disappear entirely while the postal items that have been cannibalised by DBIS would continue to be delivered by traditional post (i.e. on paper) in the counterfactual scenario. This change in demand affects both the costs and revenues and therefore has to be taken into account in the counterfactual scenario. To model how demand would change, the Czech authorities have explained that they have used market surveys and the analysis presented in the DBIS decision (see recital 193). According to the conducted surveys, some customers would choose to continue to use the services of Czech Post after the closure of their post office and would meet their demand for services at a different post office. Nevertheless, some demand would inevitably be lost as certain customers would switch to other competitors and some customers would choose to reduce their demand. As a result, Czech Post would lose revenue from SGEI and non-SGEI services. The quantification of the expected decline in revenue due to the modification of demand further to the closure of post offices is shown below in Table 15.

Table 15

Decline in revenues (2018-2022)

Year

Revenues - factual scenario

Revenues - counterfactual scenario

Revenues decline (USO impact)

Revenues increase (DBIS impact)

Difference in revenues

2018 (2 135 closed post offices + 462 Postpoints)

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

509 492 440

2019 (2 155 closed post offices + 462 Postpoints)

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

567 578 636

2020 (2 149 closed post offices + 462 Postpoints)

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

825 285 436

2021 (2 149 closed post offices + 468 Postpoints)

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

667 351 242

2022 (2 149 closed post offices + 468 Postpoints)

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

769 075 085

| (209) | Czechia clarified that all costs associated with the provision of the DBIS service (in the factual scenario) would not be incurred in the counterfactual scenario. The DBIS is operationally and technologically separated from the activities in the traditional postal network and no processes are shared between the DBIS and the postal and other process implemented in the postal offices, transport network or delivery points, so the avoided direct costs of DBIS can be accurately identified. |
| --- | --- |

(209)

Czechia clarified that all costs associated with the provision of the DBIS service (in the factual scenario) would not be incurred in the counterfactual scenario. The DBIS is operationally and technologically separated from the activities in the traditional postal network and no processes are shared between the DBIS and the postal and other process implemented in the postal offices, transport network or delivery points, so the avoided direct costs of DBIS can be accurately identified.

| (210) | Further to the analysis of the impact on revenues, the fact that customers meet their demand for postal and non-postal services at a different post office means that sufficient capacity must be available at such office. In the event that additional capacity is needed, it increases the costs of human resources and of equipment for that post office. The costs of creating sufficient (additional) capacity at post offices which remain open are therefore an item which reduces the costs saved by closing the other post offices (i.e. a decrease of the amounts estimated to be saved in the tables 10-14 above). The calculation of this additional capacity is based on the volume of services that would be expected to shift from the closed postal offices. The volume is translated in work-hours based on labour time norms for activities and further translated into (additional) costs. The costs associated with the need to increase capacity at the remaining post offices and the impact on the avoided costs is reported in Table 16.

  Table 16


  Cost savings on the post offices network after taking into account the increase in capacity (2018-2022)











  Amounts in CZK | Cost savings 2018 | Cost savings 2019 | Cost savings 2020 | Cost savings 2021 | Cost savings 2022 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Avoided costs from closure of post offices | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Cost of increasing capacity of remaining post offices* | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Cost of increasing capacity of remaining post offices DBIS** | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Final cost savings from closure of post offices | 1 665 731 514 | 1 678 453 114 | 1 704 858 692 | 1 756 093 539 | 1 753 203 324 |

(210)

Further to the analysis of the impact on revenues, the fact that customers meet their demand for postal and non-postal services at a different post office means that sufficient capacity must be available at such office. In the event that additional capacity is needed, it increases the costs of human resources and of equipment for that post office. The costs of creating sufficient (additional) capacity at post offices which remain open are therefore an item which reduces the costs saved by closing the other post offices (i.e. a decrease of the amounts estimated to be saved in the tables 10-14 above). The calculation of this additional capacity is based on the volume of services that would be expected to shift from the closed postal offices. The volume is translated in work-hours based on labour time norms for activities and further translated into (additional) costs. The costs associated with the need to increase capacity at the remaining post offices and the impact on the avoided costs is reported in Table 16.

Table 16

Cost savings on the post offices network after taking into account the increase in capacity (2018-2022)

Amounts in CZK

Cost savings 2018

Cost savings 2019

Cost savings 2020

Cost savings 2021

Cost savings 2022

Avoided costs from closure of post offices

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Cost of increasing capacity of remaining post offices*

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Cost of increasing capacity of remaining post offices DBIS**

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Final cost savings from closure of post offices

1 665 731 514

1 678 453 114

1 704 858 692

1 756 093 539

1 753 203 324

Step 2: Identifying the impact on costs and revenues from reducing the delivery frequency of letters in the counterfactual scenario

| (211) | Czech Post, with the help of an external consultant, conducted an analysis of the quantity and frequency of letters delivered throughout the country. The analysis was based on the frequency of visiting individual premises of the customers in individual letter districts as well as the structure of consignments delivered. |
| --- | --- |

(211)

Czech Post, with the help of an external consultant, conducted an analysis of the quantity and frequency of letters delivered throughout the country. The analysis was based on the frequency of visiting individual premises of the customers in individual letter districts as well as the structure of consignments delivered.

| (212) | Czech Post has no plan to change parcel delivery, since the parcels delivery market is sufficiently competitive. Therefore, the delivery frequency of the parcels is not subject to change in the counterfactual scenario. |
| --- | --- |

(212)

Czech Post has no plan to change parcel delivery, since the parcels delivery market is sufficiently competitive. Therefore, the delivery frequency of the parcels is not subject to change in the counterfactual scenario.

| (213) | For 2018-2019, the factual scenario includes D+1 delivery and the counterfactual scenario includes D+n delivery for ordinary and registered letters. A lower frequency of delivery in the counterfactual scenario leads to savings on vehicles and on labour (i.e., number of postal carriers). The cost saving is deduced from an analysis of costs recorded in accounting in cost pools and in specialised operating systems (i.e., Delivery Productivity Measurement System). Costs are divided into two types: fixed costs associated with postal delivery and variable costs related to handling letters (i.e., putting letters into letterboxes, handing over registered letters, making records of delivery - signatures from recipients). The costs of doing a round can be considered the costs which are saved if the postal delivery worker does not go out on the round (the costs of vehicles, fuel and staff are saved). The costs of the actual delivery (handover) of consignments to the addressees are saved in part, depending on the precise reduction in demand for services. |
| --- | --- |

(213)

For 2018-2019, the factual scenario includes D+1 delivery and the counterfactual scenario includes D+n delivery for ordinary and registered letters. A lower frequency of delivery in the counterfactual scenario leads to savings on vehicles and on labour (i.e., number of postal carriers). The cost saving is deduced from an analysis of costs recorded in accounting in cost pools and in specialised operating systems (i.e., Delivery Productivity Measurement System). Costs are divided into two types: fixed costs associated with postal delivery and variable costs related to handling letters (i.e., putting letters into letterboxes, handing over registered letters, making records of delivery - signatures from recipients). The costs of doing a round can be considered the costs which are saved if the postal delivery worker does not go out on the round (the costs of vehicles, fuel and staff are saved). The costs of the actual delivery (handover) of consignments to the addressees are saved in part, depending on the precise reduction in demand for services.

| (214) | In 2020-2022, the factual scenario includes D+1 and D+n letters delivery and the counterfactual scenario includes D+n delivery. The net cost of delivery for 2020-2022 is smaller because it covers only additional costs and additional revenues for D+1 delivery of letters. It is not expected that a reduction in the frequency of delivery would reduce the demand for services. A reduction in demand is only expected as a consequence of reducing the post office network. |
| --- | --- |

(214)

In 2020-2022, the factual scenario includes D+1 and D+n letters delivery and the counterfactual scenario includes D+n delivery. The net cost of delivery for 2020-2022 is smaller because it covers only additional costs and additional revenues for D+1 delivery of letters. It is not expected that a reduction in the frequency of delivery would reduce the demand for services. A reduction in demand is only expected as a consequence of reducing the post office network.

| (215) | The assumptions referred to in recital 215 were confirmed not only by a market survey but also by recent market observations as explained in recital 203. In measuring the avoided cost, each type of cost saving is quantified separately. Cost savings are detailed in Tables 17-21.

  Table 17


  Cost savings due to reduction in delivery frequency, considering the impact due to abolishing DBIS (2018)









  Costs (CZK) 2018 | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided (saved) costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Delivery network - letters | | | |
| — | rounds when delivering within the district |

(215)

The assumptions referred to in recital 215 were confirmed not only by a market survey but also by recent market observations as explained in recital 203. In measuring the avoided cost, each type of cost saving is quantified separately. Cost savings are detailed in Tables 17-21.

Table 17

Cost savings due to reduction in delivery frequency, considering the impact due to abolishing DBIS (2018)

Costs (CZK) 2018

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided (saved) costs

Delivery network - letters

—

rounds when delivering within the district

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |
| --- | --- |

—

DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | transport |
| --- | --- |

—

transport

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | number of vehicles needed |
| --- | --- |

—

number of vehicles needed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | overheads |
| --- | --- |

—

overheads

[...]

[...]

[...]

Delivery network - parcels

[...]

[...]

0

Total costs - delivery network all

[...]

[...]

964 172 812

Table 18

Cost savings due to a reduction in delivery frequency, considering the impact of the abolition of DBIS (2019)

| Costs (CZK) 2019 | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided (saved) costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Delivery network – letters | | | |
| — | rounds when delivering within the district |

Costs (CZK) 2019

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided (saved) costs

Delivery network – letters

—

rounds when delivering within the district

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |
| --- | --- |

—

DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | transport |
| --- | --- |

—

transport

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | number of vehicles needed |
| --- | --- |

—

number of vehicles needed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | overheads |
| --- | --- |

—

overheads

[...]

[...]

[...]

Delivery network - parcels

[...]

[...]

0

Total costs - delivery network all

[...]

[...]

984 317 954

Table 19

Cost savings due to reduction in delivery frequency, considering the impact of the abolition of DBIS (2020)

| Costs (CZK) 2020 | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided (saved) costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Delivery network - letters | | | |
| — | rounds when delivering within the district |

Costs (CZK) 2020

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided (saved) costs

Delivery network - letters

—

rounds when delivering within the district

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |
| --- | --- |

—

DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | transport |
| --- | --- |

—

transport

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | number of vehicles needed |
| --- | --- |

—

number of vehicles needed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | overheads |
| --- | --- |

—

overheads

[...]

[...]

[...]

Delivery network - parcels

[...]

[...]

0

Total costs - delivery network all

[...]

[...]

30 535 370

Table 20

Cost savings due to reduction in delivery frequency, considering the impact of the abolition of DBIS (2021)

| Costs (CZK) 2021 | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided (saved) costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Delivery network - letters | | | |
| — | rounds when delivering within the district |

Costs (CZK) 2021

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided (saved) costs

Delivery network - letters

—

rounds when delivering within the district

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |
| --- | --- |

—

DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | transport |
| --- | --- |

—

transport

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | number of vehicles needed |
| --- | --- |

—

number of vehicles needed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | overheads |
| --- | --- |

—

overheads

[...]

[...]

[...]

Delivery network - parcels

[...]

[...]

0

Total costs - delivery network all

[...]

[...]

155 551 623

Table 21

Cost savings due to reduction in delivery frequency, considering the impact of the abolition of DBIS (2022)

| Costs (CZK) 2022 | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided (saved) costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Delivery network - letters | | | |
| — | rounds when delivering within the district |

Costs (CZK) 2022

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided (saved) costs

Delivery network - letters

—

rounds when delivering within the district

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |
| --- | --- |

—

DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | transport |
| --- | --- |

—

transport

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | number of vehicles needed |
| --- | --- |

—

number of vehicles needed

[...]

[...]

[...]

| — | overheads |
| --- | --- |

—

overheads

[...]

[...]

[...]

Delivery network - parcels

[...]

[...]

0

Total costs - delivery network all

[...]

[...]

143 084 135

Step 3: Identifying the avoided costs related to reducing administrative activities associated with being the USO provider

| (216) | In the factual scenario, there are administrative activities which are directly linked to the provision of USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. Czech Post envisages discontinuing some of these activities in the counterfactual scenario. |
| --- | --- |

(216)

In the factual scenario, there are administrative activities which are directly linked to the provision of USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. Czech Post envisages discontinuing some of these activities in the counterfactual scenario.

| (217) | There are other administrative activities which Czech Post would voluntarily carry out in the counterfactual scenario, although to a lesser extent than in the factual scenario. For example, Czech Post would still keep a cost accounting system even if it were not entrusted with the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(217)

There are other administrative activities which Czech Post would voluntarily carry out in the counterfactual scenario, although to a lesser extent than in the factual scenario. For example, Czech Post would still keep a cost accounting system even if it were not entrusted with the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities.

| (218) | The relevant administrative activities which Czech Post envisages discontinuing in the counterfactual scenario are the following:






  (a) | measurement of transport time and transportation flow times: Czech Post is obliged to deliver within D+1 time according to certain quality standards. The transport time measurements, including all the source documents, must be provided to the regulator. Czech Post hires an independent agency to carry out these measurements; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(218)

The relevant administrative activities which Czech Post envisages discontinuing in the counterfactual scenario are the following:

(a)

measurement of transport time and transportation flow times: Czech Post is obliged to deliver within D+1 time according to certain quality standards. The transport time measurements, including all the source documents, must be provided to the regulator. Czech Post hires an independent agency to carry out these measurements;

| (b) | keeping detailed separate records for costs and revenues of USO: Czech Post is obliged to keep separate records on the costs and revenues related to the USO activity. The cost of this obligation is calculated as the cost of processing and maintaining the model of separate records of the costs and revenues, and the related reporting; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

keeping detailed separate records for costs and revenues of USO: Czech Post is obliged to keep separate records on the costs and revenues related to the USO activity. The cost of this obligation is calculated as the cost of processing and maintaining the model of separate records of the costs and revenues, and the related reporting;

| (c) | audit of separated records: Czech Post is obliged to have separate records on the costs and revenues verified by an independent entity. Had Czech Post not been obliged to keep separate records, it would only have kept the statutory audit; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

audit of separated records: Czech Post is obliged to have separate records on the costs and revenues verified by an independent entity. Had Czech Post not been obliged to keep separate records, it would only have kept the statutory audit;

| (d) | source documents for USO net costs: Czech Post needs relevant source documents to be able to calculate the USO costs. For this purpose, Czech Post hired an independent company specialising in geodetic calculations (connection of the production with maps and identification of delivery districts). The amount of these annual costs was included in the USO net costs; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

source documents for USO net costs: Czech Post needs relevant source documents to be able to calculate the USO costs. For this purpose, Czech Post hired an independent company specialising in geodetic calculations (connection of the production with maps and identification of delivery districts). The amount of these annual costs was included in the USO net costs;

| (e) | department of Regulation: the costs of the organisational unit ensuring the communication with the regulatory authority concerning USO obligations, including the processing of its quality incentives concerning USO; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

department of Regulation: the costs of the organisational unit ensuring the communication with the regulatory authority concerning USO obligations, including the processing of its quality incentives concerning USO;

| (f) | department of Postal technologies: the costs of the organisational unit ensuring the prerequisites for observation of the required qualitative USO parameters in Czech Post’s operation (e.g. development of qualitative USO requirements into operational standards, the monitoring of the quality of services and arrangement of corrective measures) and ensuring the postal service operator’s duty to report. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

department of Postal technologies: the costs of the organisational unit ensuring the prerequisites for observation of the required qualitative USO parameters in Czech Post’s operation (e.g. development of qualitative USO requirements into operational standards, the monitoring of the quality of services and arrangement of corrective measures) and ensuring the postal service operator’s duty to report.

| (219) | The related cost savings from the reduction of these administrative activities are shown in Tables 22 to 26.

  Table 22


  Cost savings from administrative activities (2018)









  Amounts for 2018 in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Measuring of transport time and transport flows | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Audit of separate accounts | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Reference materials for net cost calculation | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal licence division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal technology division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities | [...] | [...] | 26 074 775 |

(219)

The related cost savings from the reduction of these administrative activities are shown in Tables 22 to 26.

Table 22

Cost savings from administrative activities (2018)

Amounts for 2018 in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

Measuring of transport time and transport flows

[...]

[...]

[...]

Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues

[...]

[...]

[...]

Audit of separate accounts

[...]

[...]

[...]

Reference materials for net cost calculation

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal licence division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal technology division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities

[...]

[...]

26 074 775

Table 23

Cost savings from administrative activities (2019)

| Amounts for 2019 in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Measuring of transport time and transport flows | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Audit of separate accounts | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Reference materials for net cost calculation | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal licence division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal technology division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities | [...] | [...] | 25 869 244 |

Amounts for 2019 in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

Measuring of transport time and transport flows

[...]

[...]

[...]

Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues

[...]

[...]

[...]

Audit of separate accounts

[...]

[...]

[...]

Reference materials for net cost calculation

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal licence division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal technology division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities

[...]

[...]

25 869 244

Table 24

Cost savings from administrative activities (2020)

| Amounts for 2020 in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Measuring of transport time and transport flows | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Audit of separate accounts | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Reference materials for net cost calculation | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal licence division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal technology division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities | [...] | [...] | 28 386 061 |

Amounts for 2020 in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

Measuring of transport time and transport flows

[...]

[...]

[...]

Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues

[...]

[...]

[...]

Audit of separate accounts

[...]

[...]

[...]

Reference materials for net cost calculation

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal licence division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal technology division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities

[...]

[...]

28 386 061

Table 25

Cost savings from administrative activities (2021)

| Amounts for 2021 in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Measuring of transport time and transport flows | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Audit of separate accounts | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Reference materials for net cost calculation | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal licence division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal technology division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities | [...] | [...] | 28 652 075 |

Amounts for 2021 in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

Measuring of transport time and transport flows

[...]

[...]

[...]

Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues

[...]

[...]

[...]

Audit of separate accounts

[...]

[...]

[...]

Reference materials for net cost calculation

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal licence division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal technology division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities

[...]

[...]

28 652 075

Table 26

Cost savings from administrative activities (2022)

| Amounts for 2022 in CZK | Factual scenario | Counterfactual scenario | Avoided costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Measuring of transport time and transport flows | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Audit of separate accounts | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Reference materials for net cost calculation | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal licence division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Postal technology division | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities | [...] | [...] | 29 222 379 |

Amounts for 2022 in CZK

Factual scenario

Counterfactual scenario

Avoided costs

Measuring of transport time and transport flows

[...]

[...]

[...]

Keeping separate accounts of costs and revenues

[...]

[...]

[...]

Audit of separate accounts

[...]

[...]

[...]

Reference materials for net cost calculation

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal licence division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Postal technology division

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total avoided cost from reduction in administrative activities

[...]

[...]

29 222 379

III.   Identifying and calculating the intangible and market benefits

| (220) | Intangible and market benefits are those benefits enjoyed by a provider, due to its status as the USO provider, which entail an improvement in its profitability. |
| --- | --- |

(220)

Intangible and market benefits are those benefits enjoyed by a provider, due to its status as the USO provider, which entail an improvement in its profitability.

| (221) | Typical intangibles in the postal sector referred to in the literature include:






  (a) | brand value enhancement; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(221)

Typical intangibles in the postal sector referred to in the literature include:

(a)

brand value enhancement;

| (b) | exclusive sale of postage stamps and philately items; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

exclusive sale of postage stamps and philately items;

| (c) | enhanced advertising effect; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

enhanced advertising effect;

| (d) | demand effects due to the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

demand effects due to the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption;

| (e) | economies of scale and scope; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

economies of scale and scope;

| (f) | ubiquity and network advantages; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

ubiquity and network advantages;

| (g) | lower transaction costs and better customer acquisition due to uniform price. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

lower transaction costs and better customer acquisition due to uniform price.

| (222) | The intangible and market benefits related to the status as USO provider that were identified by Czech Post are presented below: |
| --- | --- |

(222)

The intangible and market benefits related to the status as USO provider that were identified by Czech Post are presented below:

| (223) | The enhancement of brand value is understood to be a benefit as the universal service provider achieves higher revenues because the brand is well known and people believe it guarantees a certain quality of service. This benefit is expressed financially as the amount of revenue corresponding to the percentage of customers of the licence holder who would not use its postal services if it did not provide the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. For calculating this benefit, a percentage of 0,4 % (73) was used taking into account the conclusions drawn up in the ‘Study on the principles used to calculate the net costs of the postal USO’ (74). |
| --- | --- |

(223)

The enhancement of brand value is understood to be a benefit as the universal service provider achieves higher revenues because the brand is well known and people believe it guarantees a certain quality of service. This benefit is expressed financially as the amount of revenue corresponding to the percentage of customers of the licence holder who would not use its postal services if it did not provide the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. For calculating this benefit, a percentage of 0,4 % (73) was used taking into account the conclusions drawn up in the ‘Study on the principles used to calculate the net costs of the postal USO’ (74).

| (224) | The benefit arising from the USO provider’s exclusive right to sell postage stamps and other tokens of value is due to the fact that some sold stamps and tokens are never used (among others because they are kept for philately purposes). The value of this benefit is expressed financially as the sum of: (i) the estimate of the value of sold and unused postage stamps and tokens of value; and (ii) an estimate of revenues from the sale of postage stamps, tokens of value and other similar products for philately purposes. |
| --- | --- |

(224)

The benefit arising from the USO provider’s exclusive right to sell postage stamps and other tokens of value is due to the fact that some sold stamps and tokens are never used (among others because they are kept for philately purposes). The value of this benefit is expressed financially as the sum of: (i) the estimate of the value of sold and unused postage stamps and tokens of value; and (ii) an estimate of revenues from the sale of postage stamps, tokens of value and other similar products for philately purposes.

| (225) | The enhanced advertising effect is understood to be the benefit for the USO provider of being able to use selected parts of its property (like cars or buildings) for marketing purposes. This benefit can be calculated as the USO provider’s savings in marketing costs (i.e. the cost it would have to pay on the market for marketing its brand and products in that same place) taking into account any actual revenue obtained by renting out advertising space on its premises to other undertakings. For example, to calculate the value of advertising space on premises, the price lists of advertising companies or municipalities were used. These prices were subsequently adapted to the size of the advertising space on Czech Post premises. On this basis, the Czech authorities estimated a value from advertising on buildings and advertising on vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

(225)

The enhanced advertising effect is understood to be the benefit for the USO provider of being able to use selected parts of its property (like cars or buildings) for marketing purposes. This benefit can be calculated as the USO provider’s savings in marketing costs (i.e. the cost it would have to pay on the market for marketing its brand and products in that same place) taking into account any actual revenue obtained by renting out advertising space on its premises to other undertakings. For example, to calculate the value of advertising space on premises, the price lists of advertising companies or municipalities were used. These prices were subsequently adapted to the size of the advertising space on Czech Post premises. On this basis, the Czech authorities estimated a value from advertising on buildings and advertising on vehicles.

| (226) | The postal services part of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, benefit from a Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) exemption. The VAT exemption on those services affects the provider in the counterfactual scenario in two ways: (i) in the area of its revenues (benefit dependent on price elasticity for different categories of customers); and (ii) in the area of its costs (the USO provider currently cannot claim input VAT for those invoices that concern universal services). |
| --- | --- |

(226)

The postal services part of the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, benefit from a Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) exemption. The VAT exemption on those services affects the provider in the counterfactual scenario in two ways: (i) in the area of its revenues (benefit dependent on price elasticity for different categories of customers); and (ii) in the area of its costs (the USO provider currently cannot claim input VAT for those invoices that concern universal services).

| (227) | Both consequences of the VAT were taken into consideration in calculating this intangible benefit and the resulting value is equal to the difference of these elements. |
| --- | --- |

(227)

Both consequences of the VAT were taken into consideration in calculating this intangible benefit and the resulting value is equal to the difference of these elements.

| (228) | The impact on the area of revenues is calculated based on how the introduction of the VAT of 21% would be perceived by postal service customers. The structure of customers from the perspective of whether they are VAT payers (or not) is essential for determining the amount of the VAT benefit. Customers who cannot claim VAT in a tax return (business undertakings - non-VAT payers) would perceive an increase in prices as a result of the introduction of VAT as an absolute increase in price, which could discourage them from using the postal services of Czech Post. For customers having a special regime (State bodies), a certain decrease in revenues could be expected; only for registered letters is the elasticity low because certain types of documents must be sent as registered consignments. The value of the VAT benefit was determined (75) at [2-8] % of the revenues for registered letters from the public administration. An increase in price as a result of application of the VAT could be applied to a large extent among end (retail) customers. The VAT benefit was quantified as [4-9] % of revenues for services in relation to these customers. VAT-paying customers are able to claim VAT in their tax returns and for this reason an increase in price by VAT has no negative impact on them, and their behaviour is not influenced by an increase in the price by VAT. Therefore, VAT is not a benefit in relation to these customers. |
| --- | --- |

(228)

The impact on the area of revenues is calculated based on how the introduction of the VAT of 21% would be perceived by postal service customers. The structure of customers from the perspective of whether they are VAT payers (or not) is essential for determining the amount of the VAT benefit. Customers who cannot claim VAT in a tax return (business undertakings - non-VAT payers) would perceive an increase in prices as a result of the introduction of VAT as an absolute increase in price, which could discourage them from using the postal services of Czech Post. For customers having a special regime (State bodies), a certain decrease in revenues could be expected; only for registered letters is the elasticity low because certain types of documents must be sent as registered consignments. The value of the VAT benefit was determined (75) at [2-8] % of the revenues for registered letters from the public administration. An increase in price as a result of application of the VAT could be applied to a large extent among end (retail) customers. The VAT benefit was quantified as [4-9] % of revenues for services in relation to these customers. VAT-paying customers are able to claim VAT in their tax returns and for this reason an increase in price by VAT has no negative impact on them, and their behaviour is not influenced by an increase in the price by VAT. Therefore, VAT is not a benefit in relation to these customers.

| (229) | The Czech authorities explained that they have also considered the potential intangible benefits listed in recital 215 from (e) to (g) but believe that they would not be relevant in the case of Czech Post. According to the Czech authorities, the economies of scale are accounted for in the counterfactual scenario, so calculating an intangible benefit of this kind would lead to double counting. Regarding the ubiquity and network advantage of Czech Post, the Czech authorities are of the opinion that these elements seem to be rather a disadvantage than an advantage for the designated postal licence holder since it is obliged to operate postal offices also in places with low (insufficient) demand. This disadvantage is only slightly compensated by the possibility to commercialize postal offices with a large portfolio of services. Moreover, the competitors of Czech Post also offer delivery services in the whole country without the requirement of keeping such a dense network of postal offices which has to meet minimum requirements in terms of the services available. Finally, as regards the application of uniform prices, the Czech authorities explain that Czech Post would offer uniform prices also in the counterfactual scenario, therefore there is no benefit arising from it. Furthermore, other postal operators also offer uniform prices. |
| --- | --- |

(229)

The Czech authorities explained that they have also considered the potential intangible benefits listed in recital 215 from (e) to (g) but believe that they would not be relevant in the case of Czech Post. According to the Czech authorities, the economies of scale are accounted for in the counterfactual scenario, so calculating an intangible benefit of this kind would lead to double counting. Regarding the ubiquity and network advantage of Czech Post, the Czech authorities are of the opinion that these elements seem to be rather a disadvantage than an advantage for the designated postal licence holder since it is obliged to operate postal offices also in places with low (insufficient) demand. This disadvantage is only slightly compensated by the possibility to commercialize postal offices with a large portfolio of services. Moreover, the competitors of Czech Post also offer delivery services in the whole country without the requirement of keeping such a dense network of postal offices which has to meet minimum requirements in terms of the services available. Finally, as regards the application of uniform prices, the Czech authorities explain that Czech Post would offer uniform prices also in the counterfactual scenario, therefore there is no benefit arising from it. Furthermore, other postal operators also offer uniform prices.

| (230) | Table 27 below show the annual estimated amount of intangible benefits per category of intangible benefit as well as the aggregated value.

  Table 27


  Intangible benefits over 2018-2022











  Amounts in CZK | Value (2018) | Value (2019) | Value (2020) | Value (2021) | Value (2022) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (a) | Enhancement of brand value |

(230)

Table 27 below show the annual estimated amount of intangible benefits per category of intangible benefit as well as the aggregated value.

Table 27

Intangible benefits over 2018-2022

Amounts in CZK

Value (2018)

Value (2019)

Value (2020)

Value (2021)

Value (2022)

(a)

Enhancement of brand value

[47 000 000 – 49 000 000 ]

[47 000 000 – 49 000 000 ]

[47 000 000 – 49 000 000 ]

[46 000 000 – 48 000 000 ]

[48 000 000 -50 000 000 ]

| (b) | Exclusive sale of postage stamps and philately items |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Exclusive sale of postage stamps and philately items

[29 000 000  -31 000 000 ]

[20 000 000 -24 000 000 ]

[25 000 000  -29 000 000 ]

[24 000 000 – 26 000 000 ]

[23 000 000 -25 000 000 ]

| (c) | Enhanced advertising effect |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Enhanced advertising effect

[5 000 000 -6 000 000 ]

[5 000 000 -6 000 000 ]

[5 000 000 -6 000 000 ]

[5 000 000 -6 000 000 ]

[5 000 000 -6 000 000 ]

| (d) | Benefit from VAT exemption |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Benefit from VAT exemption

[1 000 000 – 3 000 000 ]

[10 000 000 – 15 000 000 ]

[10 000 000 – 15 000 000 ]

[500 000 -1 000 000 ]

[3 000 000 – 6 000 000 ]

Total value of intangible and market benefits

85 243 182

89 520 368

90 441 323

77 782 080

83 283 689

IV.   Calculation of the total NAC incurred by Czech Post for both DBIS and USO

| (231) | Tables 28 to 32 below provide an overview of the various elements of the total net cost calculation of both DBIS and USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, as explained above.

  Table 28


  Summary of the total NAC calculation of DBIS and USO for 2018









  Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2018 in CZK | Avoided costs | Revenues (difference) | Net cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Postal infrastructure | | | |
| Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing administrative activities (c) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| — | other DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |

(231)

Tables 28 to 32 below provide an overview of the various elements of the total net cost calculation of both DBIS and USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, as explained above.

Table 28

Summary of the total NAC calculation of DBIS and USO for 2018

Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2018 in CZK

Avoided costs

Revenues (difference)

Net cost

Postal infrastructure

Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing administrative activities (c)

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

other DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total postal infrastructure (D)

[...]

[...]

2 961 954 995

Total value of intangible and market benefits (E)

-85 243 182

Reasonable profit (F)

70 395 489

DBIS abolishment (G)

[...]

[...]

399 895 500

USO & DBIS NAC (G+D+E+F)

[...]

[...]

3 347 002 803

Table 29

Summary of the total NAC calculation of DBIS and USO for 2019

| Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2019 in CZK | Avoided costs | Revenues (difference) | Net cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Postal infrastructure | | | |
| Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing administrative activities (c) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| — | other DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |

Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2019 in CZK

Avoided costs

Revenues (difference)

Net cost

Postal infrastructure

Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing administrative activities (c)

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

other DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total postal infrastructure (D)

[...]

[...]

3 056 279 020

Total value of intangible and market benefits (E)

-89 520 368

Reasonable profit (F)

51 039 074

DBIS abolishment (G)

[...]

[...]

365 740 500

USO & DBIS NAC (G+D+E+F)

[...]

[...]

3 383 538 225

Table 30

Summary of the total NAC calculation of DBIS and USO for 2020

| Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2020 in CZK | Avoided costs | Revenues (difference) | Net cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Postal infrastructure | | | |
| Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing administrative activities (c) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| — | other DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |

Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2020 in CZK

Avoided costs

Revenues (difference)

Net cost

Postal infrastructure

Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing administrative activities (c)

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

other DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total postal infrastructure (D)

[...]

[...]

2 364 647 327

Total value of intangible and market benefits (E)

-90 441 323

Reasonable profit (F)

54 711 963

DBIS abolishment (G)

[...]

[...]

405 093 000

USO & DBIS NAC (G+D+E+F)

[...]

[...]

2 734 010 967

Table 31

Summary of the total NAC calculation of DBIS and USO for 2021

| Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2021 in CZK | Avoided costs | Revenues (difference) | Net cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Postal infrastructure | | | |
| Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing administrative activities (c) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| — | other DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |

Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2021 in CZK

Avoided costs

Revenues (difference)

Net cost

Postal infrastructure

Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing administrative activities (c)

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

other DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total postal infrastructure (D)

[...]

[...]

2 388 112 789

Total value of intangible and market benefits (E)

-77 782 080

Reasonable profit (F)

87 966 118

DBIS abolishment (G)

[...]

[...]

385 330 000

USO & DBIS NAC (G+D+E+F)

[...]

[...]

2 783 626 828

Table 32

Summary of the total NAC calculation of DBIS and USO for 2022

| Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2022 in CZK | Avoided costs | Revenues (difference) | Net cost |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Postal infrastructure | | | |
| Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| Effect of reducing administrative activities (c) | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| — | other DBIS impact (increase of letters)* |

Difference factual scenario - counterfactual scenario 2022 in CZK

Avoided costs

Revenues (difference)

Net cost

Postal infrastructure

Effect of closing post offices - including cannibalisation (A)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing delivery frequency - including cannibalisation (B)

[...]

[...]

[...]

Effect of reducing administrative activities (c)

[...]

[...]

[...]

—

other DBIS impact (increase of letters)*

[...]

[...]

[...]

Total postal infrastructure (D)

[...]

[...]

2 459 402 481

Total value of intangible and market benefits (E)

-83 283 689

Reasonable profit (F)

85 139 498

DBIS abolishment (G)

[...]

[...]

377 178 000

USO & DBIS NAC (G+D+E+F)

[...]

[...]

2 838 436 290

| (232) | Table 33 presents an overview of the NAC of the USO for Czech Post, which equates to the difference between the USO & DBIS NAC minus the DBIS NAC, as recalculated on the basis of the methodology approved with the DBIS decision but considering the actual data in the factual scenario for the period 2018-2021.

  Table 33


  Czech Post's USO NAC over 2018-2022











  Year | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NAC USO + DBIS (a) | 3 347 002 803 | 3 383 538 225 | 2 734 010 967 | 2 783 626 828 | 2 838 436 290 |
| NAC DBIS (b) | 944 790 000 | 885 323 000 | 1 102 647 000 | 1 060 374 995 | 1 096 627 211 |
| NAC USO (c=a-b) | 2 402 212 803 | 2 498 215 225 | 1 631 363 967 | 1 723 251 833 | 1 741 809 079 |

(232)

Table 33 presents an overview of the NAC of the USO for Czech Post, which equates to the difference between the USO & DBIS NAC minus the DBIS NAC, as recalculated on the basis of the methodology approved with the DBIS decision but considering the actual data in the factual scenario for the period 2018-2021.

Table 33

Czech Post's USO NAC over 2018-2022

Year

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

NAC USO + DBIS (a)

3 347 002 803

3 383 538 225

2 734 010 967

2 783 626 828

2 838 436 290

NAC DBIS (b)

944 790 000

885 323 000

1 102 647 000

1 060 374 995

1 096 627 211

NAC USO (c=a-b)

2 402 212 803

2 498 215 225

1 631 363 967

1 723 251 833

1 741 809 079

8.2.8.1.   Credibility of the NAC methodology proposed by the Czech authorities

| (233) | The Commission notes that the methodology for calculating Czech Post's net cost for providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is not based on the cost allocation methodology, which calculates the net cost necessary to discharge the public service obligations as the difference between the costs and the revenues for a designated provider of fulfilling the public service obligation, but on the NAC methodology. Under the NAC methodology, the net cost expected to be necessary to discharge the public service obligation, in this case the USO, is calculated as the difference between the net cost of the provider (Czech Post) operating with the public service obligation and the net cost that the provider would have had should it not operate with that public service obligation. Therefore, irrespective of the existence of a pricing policy of the universal postal services determined by the Postal Services Act, which already is considered as ensuring a suitable level of profit, Czech Post can still incur a net cost when providing a public service obligation like the USO. Indeed, the NAC methodology takes into account the additional cost incurred by the provider when fulfilling the USO as compared with a hypothetical situation in which the provider does not have to provide the public service. |
| --- | --- |

(233)

The Commission notes that the methodology for calculating Czech Post's net cost for providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities, is not based on the cost allocation methodology, which calculates the net cost necessary to discharge the public service obligations as the difference between the costs and the revenues for a designated provider of fulfilling the public service obligation, but on the NAC methodology. Under the NAC methodology, the net cost expected to be necessary to discharge the public service obligation, in this case the USO, is calculated as the difference between the net cost of the provider (Czech Post) operating with the public service obligation and the net cost that the provider would have had should it not operate with that public service obligation. Therefore, irrespective of the existence of a pricing policy of the universal postal services determined by the Postal Services Act, which already is considered as ensuring a suitable level of profit, Czech Post can still incur a net cost when providing a public service obligation like the USO. Indeed, the NAC methodology takes into account the additional cost incurred by the provider when fulfilling the USO as compared with a hypothetical situation in which the provider does not have to provide the public service.

| (234) | Therefore, the Commission concludes that the NAC methodology proposed by the Czech authorities is appropriate to determine the net cost incurred by Czech Post for the delivery of the USO. The NAC methodology meets the requirements of the 2012 SGEI Framework. In particular, the counterfactual scenario is credible as well as the estimation of its financial impact on Czech Post’s activities. Furthermore, intangible benefit corrections have been adequately considered. |
| --- | --- |

(234)

Therefore, the Commission concludes that the NAC methodology proposed by the Czech authorities is appropriate to determine the net cost incurred by Czech Post for the delivery of the USO. The NAC methodology meets the requirements of the 2012 SGEI Framework. In particular, the counterfactual scenario is credible as well as the estimation of its financial impact on Czech Post’s activities. Furthermore, intangible benefit corrections have been adequately considered.

8.2.8.2.   Reasonable profit

| (235) | Paragraph 21 of the 2012 SGEI Framework provides for including a reasonable profit in the net cost of providing an SGEI. The Czech authorities have added a reasonable profit to NAC calculation determined as Czech Post’s difference in cost of capital employed when switching from the factual to the counterfactual (76). Such a cost of capital was based on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) methodology. The values of WACC for both the factual scenario (i.e. 8,22 %) and counterfactual scenario (i.e. 8,92 %), for the entrustment period 2018–2022, were calculated in the second half of 2018 by the CTO in cooperation with consultants. |
| --- | --- |

(235)

Paragraph 21 of the 2012 SGEI Framework provides for including a reasonable profit in the net cost of providing an SGEI. The Czech authorities have added a reasonable profit to NAC calculation determined as Czech Post’s difference in cost of capital employed when switching from the factual to the counterfactual (76). Such a cost of capital was based on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) methodology. The values of WACC for both the factual scenario (i.e. 8,22 %) and counterfactual scenario (i.e. 8,92 %), for the entrustment period 2018–2022, were calculated in the second half of 2018 by the CTO in cooperation with consultants.

| (236) | According to a Commission staff working document from 2015 (77) the cost of capital concept is used as a reasonable economic measurement of profitability. The WACC is commonly used as a cost of capital concept. It indicates the rate of return which must be generated in order to ensure that investors are willing to maintain their investment under competitive conditions. The WACC associated with the provision of the universal service is appropriate to ensure that all relevant costs of the universal service provider are taken into account. The Commission notes that the methodology used, as detailed in the CTO’s annual NAC verification reports, as well as the value of WACC both in the factual and counterfactual scenarios are appropriate to estimate the reasonable profit of Czech Post in providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. In conclusion, the Commission considers that the reasonable profit taken into account in the NAC calculations is acceptable. |
| --- | --- |

(236)

According to a Commission staff working document from 2015 (77) the cost of capital concept is used as a reasonable economic measurement of profitability. The WACC is commonly used as a cost of capital concept. It indicates the rate of return which must be generated in order to ensure that investors are willing to maintain their investment under competitive conditions. The WACC associated with the provision of the universal service is appropriate to ensure that all relevant costs of the universal service provider are taken into account. The Commission notes that the methodology used, as detailed in the CTO’s annual NAC verification reports, as well as the value of WACC both in the factual and counterfactual scenarios are appropriate to estimate the reasonable profit of Czech Post in providing the USO, as defined by the Czech authorities. In conclusion, the Commission considers that the reasonable profit taken into account in the NAC calculations is acceptable.

8.2.8.3.   Definition of the unfair burden

| (237) | Czech Post only receives compensation for the part of the net cost of the USO that is considered as an unfair burden for the provider. Section 34d of the Postal Services Act specifies that net costs that exceed CZK 1 500 million for each year are not considered to be an unfair burden (78). |
| --- | --- |

(237)

Czech Post only receives compensation for the part of the net cost of the USO that is considered as an unfair burden for the provider. Section 34d of the Postal Services Act specifies that net costs that exceed CZK 1 500 million for each year are not considered to be an unfair burden (78).

| (238) | According to the Czech authorities, the last step in the administrative procedure consists of comparing the net cost of the USO with the unfair burden limit (cap) set out in the Postal Services Act. The maximum amount of compensation that can be granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO is limited to the amount set out in recital 238. For State aid purposes what is relevant is that Czech Post is not being overcompensated (i.e. does not receive compensation exceeding the result of the NAC calculation). The determination of the unfair burden and its level is a regulatory issue and does not affect the compatibility assessment under the SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(238)

According to the Czech authorities, the last step in the administrative procedure consists of comparing the net cost of the USO with the unfair burden limit (cap) set out in the Postal Services Act. The maximum amount of compensation that can be granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO is limited to the amount set out in recital 238. For State aid purposes what is relevant is that Czech Post is not being overcompensated (i.e. does not receive compensation exceeding the result of the NAC calculation). The determination of the unfair burden and its level is a regulatory issue and does not affect the compatibility assessment under the SGEI Framework.

8.2.9.   Efficiency incentives

| (239) | Paragraph 39 of the 2012 SGEI Framework states: ‘In devising the method of compensation, Member States must introduce incentives for the efficient provision of SGEI of a high standard, unless they can duly justify that it is not feasible or appropriate to do so.’. |
| --- | --- |

(239)

Paragraph 39 of the 2012 SGEI Framework states: ‘In devising the method of compensation, Member States must introduce incentives for the efficient provision of SGEI of a high standard, unless they can duly justify that it is not feasible or appropriate to do so.’.

| (240) | The Czech authorities have explained that efficiency incentives are present in the compensation mechanism: |
| --- | --- |

(240)

The Czech authorities have explained that efficiency incentives are present in the compensation mechanism:

| (241) | The maximum amount of compensation is laid down in the Postal Services Act (i.e. CZK 1 500 million for each year). That amount is fixed and will not be adjusted for inflation. In the event that the net cost of the USO exceeds CZK 1 500 million per year, Czech Post has to cover such excess by its own means. This provides an incentive for Czech Post to operate efficiently. |
| --- | --- |

(241)

The maximum amount of compensation is laid down in the Postal Services Act (i.e. CZK 1 500 million for each year). That amount is fixed and will not be adjusted for inflation. In the event that the net cost of the USO exceeds CZK 1 500 million per year, Czech Post has to cover such excess by its own means. This provides an incentive for Czech Post to operate efficiently.

8.2.10.   Verification of the absence of overcompensation

| (242) | The Czech authorities have confirmed that a mechanism for preventing overcompensation is in place: in accordance with Section 34d of the Postal Services Act, the postal licence holder may submit a request to the CTO for the reimbursement of the net costs representing an unfair financial burden. The request must be submitted by 31 August of the current year for the previous year (billing period). The CTO carries out the administrative procedure of verification of the net cost calculated by Czech Post using the NAC methodology. After the verification the CTO determines whether the net cost represents an unfair financial burden according to the limits set out in Section 34d of the Postal Services Act. More specifically, the reimbursement cannot exceed CZK 1 500 million for each year. In addition, the Commission notes that the maximum amount of public service compensation that can be paid to Czech Post for the period 2018-2022 are significantly lower than the calculated net cost for that period. Table 43 below shows the estimated NAC of the USO and compares it to the maximum amount of public service compensation that can be paid to Czech Post for the period 2018-2022. On this basis and given that the CTO will perform ex-post checks to detect overcompensation, the Commission concludes that the risk that Czech Post is overcompensated for the provision of the USO over the period 2018-2022 is averted. |
| --- | --- |

(242)

The Czech authorities have confirmed that a mechanism for preventing overcompensation is in place: in accordance with Section 34d of the Postal Services Act, the postal licence holder may submit a request to the CTO for the reimbursement of the net costs representing an unfair financial burden. The request must be submitted by 31 August of the current year for the previous year (billing period). The CTO carries out the administrative procedure of verification of the net cost calculated by Czech Post using the NAC methodology. After the verification the CTO determines whether the net cost represents an unfair financial burden according to the limits set out in Section 34d of the Postal Services Act. More specifically, the reimbursement cannot exceed CZK 1 500 million for each year. In addition, the Commission notes that the maximum amount of public service compensation that can be paid to Czech Post for the period 2018-2022 are significantly lower than the calculated net cost for that period. Table 43 below shows the estimated NAC of the USO and compares it to the maximum amount of public service compensation that can be paid to Czech Post for the period 2018-2022. On this basis and given that the CTO will perform ex-post checks to detect overcompensation, the Commission concludes that the risk that Czech Post is overcompensated for the provision of the USO over the period 2018-2022 is averted.

8.2.11.   Additional requirements which may be necessary to ensure that the development of trade is not affected to an extent contrary to the interests of the Union

| (243) | As explained in paragraph 51 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘The requirements set out in Sections 2.1 to 2.8 are usually sufficient to ensure that aid does not distort competition in a way that is contrary to the interests of the Union.’ |
| --- | --- |

(243)

As explained in paragraph 51 of the 2012 SGEI Framework, ‘The requirements set out in Sections 2.1 to 2.8 are usually sufficient to ensure that aid does not distort competition in a way that is contrary to the interests of the Union.’

| (244) | The Commission considers that, in the case at hand, there are no reasons to require conditions or to request commitments from Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

(244)

The Commission considers that, in the case at hand, there are no reasons to require conditions or to request commitments from Czechia.

8.2.12.   Transparency

| (245) | Paragraph 60 of the 2012 SGEI Framework states that: ‘For each SGEI compensation falling within the scope of this Communication, the Member State concerned must publish the following information on the internet or by other appropriate means:






  (1) | the results of the public consultation or other appropriate instruments referred to in paragraph 14; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(245)

Paragraph 60 of the 2012 SGEI Framework states that: ‘For each SGEI compensation falling within the scope of this Communication, the Member State concerned must publish the following information on the internet or by other appropriate means:

(1)

the results of the public consultation or other appropriate instruments referred to in paragraph 14;

| (2) | the content and duration of the public service obligations; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the content and duration of the public service obligations;

| (3) | the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the undertaking and, where applicable, the territory concerned;

| (4) | the amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis.’. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

the amounts of aid granted to the undertaking on a yearly basis.’.

| (246) | In their notification, the Czech authorities have committed themselves to complying with the requirements listed in paragraph 60 of the SGEI Framework for the compensation over the period 2018-2022. In particular, the Czech authorities have explained that:






  (a) | The consultation on the scope of the SGEI services took place as a part of a periodic review in which the CTO assessed the necessity to impose the provision of the USO for the period 2018-2022. In compliance with the results of the periodic review and the public consultation, the CTO decided the scope of the SGEI for the period 2018-2022. The results of the review and the public consultation are available on the CTO's website (79); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(246)

In their notification, the Czech authorities have committed themselves to complying with the requirements listed in paragraph 60 of the SGEI Framework for the compensation over the period 2018-2022. In particular, the Czech authorities have explained that:

(a)

The consultation on the scope of the SGEI services took place as a part of a periodic review in which the CTO assessed the necessity to impose the provision of the USO for the period 2018-2022. In compliance with the results of the periodic review and the public consultation, the CTO decided the scope of the SGEI for the period 2018-2022. The results of the review and the public consultation are available on the CTO's website (79);

| (b) | the content and duration of the public service obligations are stipulated by the decision of the CTO, which is to be published on the CTO's website (80) and also in the Postal bulletin (81); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the content and duration of the public service obligations are stipulated by the decision of the CTO, which is to be published on the CTO's website (80) and also in the Postal bulletin (81);

| (c) | the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligation and the territorial scope of the obligation are also specified in the decision on the grant of the postal licence, as explained in point (b) above; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligation and the territorial scope of the obligation are also specified in the decision on the grant of the postal licence, as explained in point (b) above;

| (d) | the amount of aid will be published on CTO's website. The obligation to publish the information about the amount of aid is set in the Section 37, paragraph 3(e), of the Postal Services Act. CTO publishes the information about the payment of net cost in the Annual report (82). CTO also voluntary publishes the information about the net cost in its periodical Monitoring reports (83). |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the amount of aid will be published on CTO's website. The obligation to publish the information about the amount of aid is set in the Section 37, paragraph 3(e), of the Postal Services Act. CTO publishes the information about the payment of net cost in the Annual report (82). CTO also voluntary publishes the information about the net cost in its periodical Monitoring reports (83).

8.2.13.   Conclusion

| (247) | Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the public service compensation granted to Czech Post for the provision of the USO, as defined in the Postal Services Act, over the period 2018-2022 constitutes State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU which is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(247)

Based on the above, the Commission concludes that the public service compensation granted to Czech Post for the provision of the USO, as defined in the Postal Services Act, over the period 2018-2022 constitutes State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU which is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU.

9.   CONLUSION

| (248) | The Commission finds that Czechia has unlawfully implemented the compensation to Czech Post for the provision of the universal postal service obligation (‘USO’), as defined by the Czech authorities, over the 2018-2022 period, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(248)

The Commission finds that Czechia has unlawfully implemented the compensation to Czech Post for the provision of the universal postal service obligation (‘USO’), as defined by the Czech authorities, over the 2018-2022 period, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

| (249) | However, the Commission informs Czechia that, having examined the information supplied by its authorities on the measures referred to above, the State compensation granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO as defined in the Postal Services Act over the period 2018-2022 constitutes State aid compatible with the internal market under the 2012 SGEI Framework, which lays down the conditions that should be met by aid to be compatible under Article 106(2) TFEU, |
| --- | --- |

(249)

However, the Commission informs Czechia that, having examined the information supplied by its authorities on the measures referred to above, the State compensation granted to Czech Post for the delivery of the USO as defined in the Postal Services Act over the period 2018-2022 constitutes State aid compatible with the internal market under the 2012 SGEI Framework, which lays down the conditions that should be met by aid to be compatible under Article 106(2) TFEU,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The State aid to Czech Post which Czechia has implemented for the provision of the USO, as defined in the Postal Services Act, over the 2018-2022 period, is compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic.

Done at Brussels, 25 July 2022.

For the Commission

Margrethe VESTAGER

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  The complaint was initially filed by Mediaservis. On 1 January 2020, Mediaservis merged with PNS. PNS, being the legal successor of Mediaservis, took over all rights and obligations of Mediaservis.

1

(2)  State aid — Czechia — State aid SA.55208 (2020/C) (ex 2020/N) — USO Compensation to Czech Post — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 294, 4.9.2020, p. 24).

2

(3)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385/58).

3

(4)  Act No 111/1990 Coll.

4

(5)  Act No 77/1997 Coll.

5

(6)  The CTO's Council Decision Ref. No ČTÚ-70 580/2017-610/ V. vyř. See: https://www.ctu.cz/sites/default/files/obsah/stranky/26768/soubory/70580-2017-610-v-pm.pdf

6

(7)  Act No 29/2000 Coll.

7

(8)  The CTO's Council Decision Ref. No ČTÚ-70580/2017-610/ V. vyř. See: https://www.ctu.cz/sites/default/files/obsah/stranky/26768/soubory/70580-2017-610-v-pm.pdf

8

(9)  This Regulation determines that, from 1 January 2016, the universal service provider is obliged to provide universal services via a network of at least 3 200 post offices.

9

(10)  Commission Decision C(2018)561 final of 2 February 2018 in case State Aid SA.47293 (2017/N) Czech Republic - State compensations granted to Czech Post for the provision of the Data Boxes Information System over the period 2018-2022 (2017/N) (OJ C 180, 25.5.2018, p. 1) (the ‘DBIS decision’).

10

(11)  Communication from the Commission: European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 15).

11

(12)  Exchange rate: CZK 1 = EUR 0,03701, taken in June 2020 from: https://ec.europa.eu/budget/graphs/inforeuro.html

12

(13)  Commission Decision SA.45281 (2017/N) and State Aid SA.44859 (2016/FC) of 19 February 2018 –Czech Republic - State compensations granted to Czech Post for the provision of the universal postal service over the period 2013-2017 (OJ C 158, 4.5.2018, p. 2), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_45281

13

(14)  For instance the recently introduced pick-up point delivery service under the trade name Parcel Delivery to Parcel Pickup Outlet Balíkovna (‘Balíkovna’).

14

(15)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14).

15

(16)  A service whereby the letter/document is created online and sent digitally to the postal provider who prints it out and posts it the same day.

16

(17)  Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ L 52, 27.2.2008, p. 3).

17

(18)  As part of the reduction in infrastructure, Czech Post proposes to close 2 155 out of its 3 210 post offices (67,1 %) and to convert a further 462 post offices (14,4 %) into so-called ‘Postpoints’. Postpoints provide all USO-related services as in the factual scenario e.g. letter delivery and parcel pick-up services in partnership with private companies, except non-USO services.

18

(19)  Absent USO, Czech Post would halve its delivery frequency from five days per week to five days every two weeks (i.e. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Tuesday, Thursday, etc.)

19

(20)  Commission decision SA.47293 (2017/N) of 2 February 2018, Czech Republic - State compensations granted to Czech Post for the provision of the Data Boxes Information System over the period 2018-2022 (OJ C 180, 25.5.2018, p. 4), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_47293

20

(21)  See Table 15 of the DBIS decision.

21

(22)  Communication from the Commission: European Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 15).

22

(23)  PNS neither provided any calculation in that respect nor the currency exchange used for the conversion of the amount in euro.

23

(24)  PNS gives some examples of unnecessary costs: (i) a Framework Agreement with Profinit EU, s.r.o. for consulting services; (ii) a tender under preparation for selection of an IT supplier; (iii) allegedly manipulated tenders conducted by Czech Post for the improvement of interiors of the postal offices and for the modernisation of bulkheads in postal offices in 2012 to 2014; (iv) bribery charges against managers of Czech Post; and (v) a non-transparent contract between Czech Post and its subsidiary Česká pošta Security, s.r.o.

24

(25)  Such as other postal service providers, professional associations, consumer associations, regional authorities, and selected central governmental authorities.

25

(26)  The invitation to the seminar organised by the Committee on Economic Affairs of the Chamber of Deputies of Czechia on 10 January 2012 under the title ‘Amendment to Act No 29/2000, on postal services – document of the Chamber No 535’ is available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/text2.sqw?idd=88779

26

(27)  See footnote 13.

27

(28)  Given that a consignment with a guaranteed delivery time of D+1 cannot compete with electronic consignments in speed or price, it is unlikely that the change in the delivery model would significantly contribute to acceleration of e-substitution, and thus a loss of revenues.

28

(29)  Available at: https://www.ctu.cz/sites/default/files/obsah/ctu/vyzva-k-uplatneni-pripominek-k-zameru-ulozit-jako-povinnost-poskytovat-zajistovat-jednotlive/obrazky/prezkumpodless37odst.4zakonaopostovnichsluzbach.pdf

29

(30)  Available at: https://www.ctu.cz/vyzva-k-uplatneni-pripominek-k-zameru-ulozit-jako-povinnost-poskytovat-zajistovat-jednotlive

30

(31)  Available at: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/tiskt.sqw?o=6&ct=535&ct1=0

31

(32)  Available at: http://apps.odok.cz/veklep

32

(33)  Available at: https://www.psp.cz/saw/historie.saw?o=6&t=535

33

(34)  Under Section 37(4) of the Postal Services Act, the CTO has to periodically review the level of quality and method for the provision and assurance of basic services and their universal availability throughout the Czech Republic in accordance with basic quality requirements. The CTO has also periodically to review the postal licence holder’s obligation to provide and assure basic services. In a review, whose results are publicly available, that took place in 2016, Czechia has justified in more detail the availability on the market of PMO and how to consider it an SGEI. Notably, the review concludes that the manner in which PMO services are provided by other payment service providers does not correspond to the requirements imposed on basic services, since delivery to the address of each natural or legal person is not ensured, but the sum of money must be collected from a specified establishment; or the territorial scope of the payment services is very limited; or the price is significantly higher; or the use of certain services is limited in some ways, such as the obligation to purchase at a certain value. The review is available at: https://www.ctu.cz/vyzva-k-uplatneni-pripominek-k-zameru-ulozit-jako-povinnost-poskytovat-zajistovat-jednotlive

34

(35)  From page 155 in Annex4b_3_survey (Inboox).pdf of the notification.

35

(36)  D+n: delivery in more than one day from the day of posting.

36

(37)  D+1: delivery within one day from the day of posting.

37

(38)  Most customers (85 % to 95 %) seems to prefer lower prices with D+n delivery rather than higher prices with D+1 delivery, while only a small percentage of business customers are willing to pay a higher price for faster delivery and consider D+1 delivery necessary.

38

(39)  Commercial post offices: The post offices of the factual scenario that would be maintained (remain open) in the counterfactual scenario.

39

(40)  If it is determined during the verification of a specific accounting period that Czech Post did not meet the prescribed qualitative indicators for the provision of the universal services, this will be reflected in the calculation of the net costs; e.g. if Czech Post temporarily does not provide any universal service at a post office, all the costs attributable to the period of temporary closure of such an office are excluded from the net costs and would thus not be compensated, even if the total verified net costs are lower than the compensation ceiling.

40

(41)  For a detailed description of the service see https://www.ceskaposta.cz/sluzby/psani/cr/obycejne-psani#popis

41

(42)  Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 in Case T-316/18 První novinová společnost v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2020:489, paragraph 202.

42

První novinová společnost

Commission

(43)  https://www.ceskaposta.cz/o-ceske-poste/profil/compliance-v-cp

43

(44)  Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten ECLI:EU:C:2000:428, paragraph 74.

44

Pavel Pavlov and Others

Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten

(45)  Case C-41/90 Höfner & Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH ECLI:EU:C:1991:161, paragraph 21 and Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten ECLI:EU:C:2000:428, paragraph 74.

45

Höfner & Fritz Elser

Macrotron GmbH

Pavel Pavlov and Others

Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten

(46)  Case C-118/85 Commission v Italian Republic ECLI:EU:C:1987:283, paragraph 7.

46

Commission

Italian Republic

(47)  Case C-82/01 P Aéroports de Paris v Commission ECLI:EU:C:2002:617, paragraph 74; and Case C-49/07 Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, paragraph 25. See also Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 2), paragraph 9.

47

Aéroports de Paris

Commission

Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE)

Elliniko Dimosio

(48)  Case C-39/94 Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) and others v La Poste and others ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, paragraph 60; and Case C-342/96 Kingdom of Spain v Commission ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, paragraph 41.

48

Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) and others

La Poste and others

Kingdom of Spain

Commission

(49)  Case C-173/73 Italian Republic v Commission EU:C:1974:71, paragraph 13.

49

Italian Republic v Commission

(50)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH ECLI:EU:C:2003:415.

50

Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH

(51)  See SGEI Communication on the application of the European State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 4), paragraph 65.

51

(52)  See cases C-15/14 P, Commission v MOL, ECLI:EU:C:2015:362, paragraph 60; C-270/15 P Belgium v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2016:489, paragraph 49; T-314/15 Greece v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2017:903, paragraph 79.

52

Commission

MOL

Belgium

Commission

Greece

Commission

(53)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission ECLI:EU:C:1980:209, paragraph 11; and Joined cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to 607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2000:151, paragraph 80.

53

Philip Morris Holland BV

Commission

Alzetta Mauro and others

Commission

(54)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1980:209 paragraphs 11 and 12; and Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region) v Commission ECLI:EU:T:1998:77, paragraphs 48-50.

54

Philip Morris Holland BV

Commission

Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region)

Commission

(55)  Payment is subject to the Commission’s approval (see Section 34e of the Postal service Act, which provides that ‘The [CTO] shall not transfer funds to cover provisional net costs or net costs representing an unfair financial burden until the European Commission has decided on their eligibility’).

55

(56)  Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU on State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of SGEI (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3).

56

(57)  2012 SGEI Framework, paragraph 11.

57

(58)  Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 4).

58

(59)  See Paragraph 14 of the 2012 SGEI Framework.

59

(60)  For example, Article 3(1) of Directive 97/67/EC provides: ‘Member States shall ensure that users enjoy the right to a universal service involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for all users.’.

60

(61)  For example, Article 3(1) of the Postal Services Directive reads: ‘Member States shall ensure that users enjoy the right to a universal service involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for all users.’.

61

(62)  The Czech authorities refer to France (La Poste), Italy (Poste Italiane), Spain (Correos) and Greece (ELTA) with entrustment periods of up to 15 years.

62

(63)  Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 in Case T-316/18 První novinová společnost v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2020:489, paragraph 202.

63

(64)  Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17).

64

(65)  Decree No 465/2012 Coll.

65

(66)  Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 in Case T-316/18, První novinová společnost v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2020:489, paragraphs 244-254.

66

(67)  The tendering procedure for the 2018-2022 period was announced in the Postal Journal: https://www.ctu.cz/postovni-vestnik-castka-8-z-30-cervna-2017 and on the CTO’s official notice board, including its electronic version: https://www.ctu.cz/oznameni-o-vyhlaseni-vyberoveho-rizeni-na-drzitele-postovni-licence-pro-obdobi-1-1-2018-31-12-2022

67

(68)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65)

68

(69)  In addition to the explanations provided in recital 179 on the possibility to rely on Article 32 (2)a) of Directive 2014/24/EU.

69

(70)  A Postpoint is an external outlet which provides only receipt and delivery of registered letters and parcels. Czech Post does not pay the external operator of the Postpoint any fixed remuneration, only per transaction. Czech Post does not pay equipment (except for a barcode reader). Postpoints are not considered in the factual scenario, but only in the counterfactual scenario.

70

(71)  ‘D’ stands for the posting day of the letter.

71

(72)  See paragraphs 244 to 254.

72

(73)  The value of brand enhancement benefit has been quantified with the same methodology as for the previous entrustment period 2013-2017 in 2018 USO Decision. The Commission considers that, as from 2018, the Czech market has not evolved in a way that would render that methodology inappropriate for the calculation of the brand value benefit.

73

(74)  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/13f857cc-74d4-430f-ab13-df744da42bea

74

(75)  VAT benefits/coefficients have been determined on the basis of a market survey conducted in 2019.

75

(76)  The cost of capital is defined as: CC = Capital Employed * WACC. Difference in cost of capital = Capital Employed(factual) * WACC(factual) minus Capital Employed(counterfactual) * WACC(counterfactual)

76

(77)  Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2015) 207 final of 17 November 2015, accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Postal Services Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC and Directive 2008/6/EC), see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015SC0207

77

(78)  The analysis on the unfair character of the burden of the USO is carried out pursuant to the relevant provisions of Directive 97/67/EC.

78

(79)  https://www.ctu.cz/vyzva-k-uplatneni-pripominek-k-zameru-ulozit-jako-povinnost-poskytovat-zajistovat-jednotlive

79

(80)  https://www.ctu.cz/sites/default/files/obsah/stranky/26768/soubory/70580-2017-610-v-pm.pdf

80

(81)  https://www.ctu.cz/postovni-vestnik-castka-16-z-12-prosince-2017

81

(82)  https://www.ctu.cz/vyrocni-zpravy

82

(83)  https://www.ctu.eu/monitoring-reports, for example see https://www.ctu.eu/sites/default/files/obsah/ctu/monthly-monitoring-report-no.3/2018/obrazky/mmz032018enfin.pdf

83

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/123

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2023/233

of 19 January 2023

amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States

(notified under document C(2023) 626)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (1), and in particular Article 259(1), point (c), thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and may have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into establishments where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other establishments where poultry or captive birds are kept. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and may have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into establishments where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other establishments where poultry or captive birds are kept.

| (2) | Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes a new legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (2) supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes a new legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (2) supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI.

| (3) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 (3) was adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down emergency measures at Union level in relation to outbreaks of HPAI. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 (3) was adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down emergency measures at Union level in relation to outbreaks of HPAI.

| (4) | More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 provides that the protection, surveillance and further restricted zones established by the Member States following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection, surveillance and further restricted zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 provides that the protection, surveillance and further restricted zones established by the Member States following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection, surveillance and further restricted zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.

| (5) | The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/125 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry or captive birds in Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands and Poland that needed to be reflected in that Annex. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/125 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry or captive birds in Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands and Poland that needed to be reflected in that Annex.

| (6) | Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/125, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland have notified the Commission of further outbreaks of HPAI in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the Flemish Region in Belgium, in Central Bohemian, South Bohemian and Zlín Regions in Czechia, in Bayern and Lower Saxony Lander in Germany, in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bretagne, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Occitanie and Pays de la Loire administrative regions in France, in Békés County in Hungary, in Braunau District in Austria, and in Kuyavian-Pomeranian, Lubusz, Łódź and Greater Poland Voivodeships in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/125, Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland have notified the Commission of further outbreaks of HPAI in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located in the Flemish Region in Belgium, in Central Bohemian, South Bohemian and Zlín Regions in Czechia, in Bayern and Lower Saxony Lander in Germany, in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bretagne, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Occitanie and Pays de la Loire administrative regions in France, in Békés County in Hungary, in Braunau District in Austria, and in Kuyavian-Pomeranian, Lubusz, Łódź and Greater Poland Voivodeships in Poland.

| (7) | The competent authorities of Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those outbreaks. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The competent authorities of Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those outbreaks.

| (8) | In addition, the competent authority of France decided to establish further restricted zones in addition to the protection and surveillance zones established for certain outbreaks located in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In addition, the competent authority of France decided to establish further restricted zones in addition to the protection and surveillance zones established for certain outbreaks located in that Member State.

| (9) | Moreover, the outbreak confirmed by Hungary is located in close proximity to the border with Romania. Accordingly, the competent authorities of these Member States have dully collaborated with regard to the establishment of the necessary surveillance zone, as the surveillance zone extends into the territory of Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Moreover, the outbreak confirmed by Hungary is located in close proximity to the border with Romania. Accordingly, the competent authorities of these Member States have dully collaborated with regard to the establishment of the necessary surveillance zone, as the surveillance zone extends into the territory of Romania.

| (10) | The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Romania, in collaboration with those Member States, and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillances zones in Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland, and of the surveillance zone in Romania, established by the competent authority of those Member States are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Romania, in collaboration with those Member States, and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillances zones in Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland, and of the surveillance zone in Romania, established by the competent authority of those Member States are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed.

| (11) | In the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 there are currently no areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Austria and no areas listed as surveillance zones for Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

In the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 there are currently no areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Austria and no areas listed as surveillance zones for Romania.

| (12) | In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Romania, the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland, and the surveillance zone duly established by Romania in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, as well as the further restricted zones established by France. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Romania, the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland, and the surveillance zone duly established by Romania in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, as well as the further restricted zones established by France.

| (13) | Therefore, the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary and Poland, as well as the areas listed as further restricted zones for France in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Therefore, the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones for Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary and Poland, as well as the areas listed as further restricted zones for France in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended.

| (14) | In addition, protection and surveillance zones should be listed for Austria and a surveillance zone should be listed for Romania in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In addition, protection and surveillance zones should be listed for Austria and a surveillance zone should be listed for Romania in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641.

| (15) | Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland, of the surveillance zone duly established by Romania and of the further restricted zones established by France in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, France, Hungary, Austria and Poland, of the surveillance zone duly established by Romania and of the further restricted zones established by France in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein.

| (16) | Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (17) | Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible.

| (18) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 January 2023.

For the Commission

Stella KYRIAKIDES

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, p. 64).

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 of 16 April 2021 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States (OJ L 134, 20.4.2021, p. 166).

3

(4)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/125 of 10 January 2023 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States (OJ L 16, 18.1.2023, p. 42).

4

---

ANNEX

‘ANNEX

Part A

Protection zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Articles 1 and 2:

Member State: Belgium

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Those parts of the municipalities Borgloon, Hoeselt, Kortessem and Tongeren contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44421, lat 50,79007. | 1.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

BE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Those parts of the municipalities Borgloon, Hoeselt, Kortessem and Tongeren contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44421, lat 50,79007.

1.2.2023

Member State: Czechia

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Moravian-Silesian Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 | Kozlovice (671771); Kunčice pod Ondřejníkem (677094); Tichá na Moravě (766992);
  Frenštát pod Radhoštěm (634719) – severovýchodní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří železniční trať ze směru Veřovice – Kunčice p. O. po železniční přejezd na silnici Nádražní, silnice Nádražní, silnice Bezručova a silnice Lomná. | 19.1.2023 |
| Plzeň Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 | Brod nad Tichou (612651); Kočov (667676); Lom u Tachova (686603); Týnec u Plané (721298); Ústí nad Mží (667684); Vítovice u Pavlovic (718530); Vysoké Sedliště (721301). | 23.1.2023 |
| Ústí nad Labem Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Karlovka (778265); Malá Bukovina (690031); Malý Šachov (755214); Starý Šachov (755222); Velká Bukovina (778273). | 25.1.2023 |
| Liberec Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Horní Police (643823); Mistrovice u Nového Oldřichova (707821); Volfartice (784907); Dolní Police (794473); Radeč u Horní Police (737445); Žandov u České Lípy (794481). | 25.1.2023 |
| Central Bohemian Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00002 | Janov u Kosovy Hory (670006); Kosova Hora (670014); Bor u Sedlčan (702234); Doubravice u Sedlčan (682802); Libíň (682811); Sedlčany (746533); Sestrouň (746568);
  Vysoká u Kosovy Hory (788198) – část obce Dohnalova Lhota. | 24.1.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00006 | Boudy (695483); Minice u Mišovic (696188); Lučkovice (695491); Mišovice (696196); Pohoří u Mirovic (696200); Svučice (761621); Kožlí u Myštic (700835); Myštice (700851); Výšice (700908); Rakovice (623849); Uzeničky (775789);
  Uzenice (775771) – východní část katastrálního území, přičemž hranici na západě tvoří silnice č. 1735 vedoucí od severní hranice katastrálního území k jižní hranici katastrálního území. | 26.1.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00007 | Dolánky (628239); Ctiměřice (618055); Bojetice (606928); Dobrovice (627470); Holé Vrchy (640905); Týnec u Dobrovice (772267); Úherce (772780); Kolomuty (668541); Semčice (747165); Vinařice u Dobrovice (782297). | 30.1.2023 |
| Moravian-Silesian Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00003 | Bartovice (715085); Radvanice (715018); Šenov u Ostravy (762342);
  Horní Datyně (642720) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Vratimovská a ul. Václavovická; Petřvald u Karviné (720488) – jihozápadní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Ostravská, ul. Závodní a ul. Šumbarská; Šumbark (637734) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Školní, ul. Lidická, ul. Opletalova a ul. U Nádraží; Vratimov (785601) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Buničitá, ul. Frýdecká, ul. Datyňská a ul. Václavovická. | 24.1.2023 |
| Hradec Králové Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00004 | Češov (623466); Kozojedy u Žlunic (797677); Sběř (746321); Slavhostice (797693); Volanice (784664); Žlunice (797707). | 25.1.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00008 | Dřevěnice (737801); Robousy (740225); Kacákova Lhota (771783); Lužany u Jičína (689238); Radim u Jičína (737828); Studeňany (737836); Řeheč (774154); Úlibice (774162). | 3.2.2023 |
| Zlín Region: |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00005 | Šumice u Uherského Brodu (764230); Těšov (766828); Újezdec u Luhačovic (774081);
  Uherský Brod (772984) – severní část katastrálního území od silnice č. 50. | 25.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Moravian-Silesian Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00018

Kozlovice (671771); Kunčice pod Ondřejníkem (677094); Tichá na Moravě (766992);

Frenštát pod Radhoštěm (634719) – severovýchodní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří železniční trať ze směru Veřovice – Kunčice p. O. po železniční přejezd na silnici Nádražní, silnice Nádražní, silnice Bezručova a silnice Lomná.

19.1.2023

Plzeň Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00019

Brod nad Tichou (612651); Kočov (667676); Lom u Tachova (686603); Týnec u Plané (721298); Ústí nad Mží (667684); Vítovice u Pavlovic (718530); Vysoké Sedliště (721301).

23.1.2023

Ústí nad Labem Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Karlovka (778265); Malá Bukovina (690031); Malý Šachov (755214); Starý Šachov (755222); Velká Bukovina (778273).

25.1.2023

Liberec Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Horní Police (643823); Mistrovice u Nového Oldřichova (707821); Volfartice (784907); Dolní Police (794473); Radeč u Horní Police (737445); Žandov u České Lípy (794481).

25.1.2023

Central Bohemian Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Janov u Kosovy Hory (670006); Kosova Hora (670014); Bor u Sedlčan (702234); Doubravice u Sedlčan (682802); Libíň (682811); Sedlčany (746533); Sestrouň (746568);

Vysoká u Kosovy Hory (788198) – část obce Dohnalova Lhota.

24.1.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

Boudy (695483); Minice u Mišovic (696188); Lučkovice (695491); Mišovice (696196); Pohoří u Mirovic (696200); Svučice (761621); Kožlí u Myštic (700835); Myštice (700851); Výšice (700908); Rakovice (623849); Uzeničky (775789);

Uzenice (775771) – východní část katastrálního území, přičemž hranici na západě tvoří silnice č. 1735 vedoucí od severní hranice katastrálního území k jižní hranici katastrálního území.

26.1.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00007

Dolánky (628239); Ctiměřice (618055); Bojetice (606928); Dobrovice (627470); Holé Vrchy (640905); Týnec u Dobrovice (772267); Úherce (772780); Kolomuty (668541); Semčice (747165); Vinařice u Dobrovice (782297).

30.1.2023

Moravian-Silesian Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

Bartovice (715085); Radvanice (715018); Šenov u Ostravy (762342);

Horní Datyně (642720) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Vratimovská a ul. Václavovická; Petřvald u Karviné (720488) – jihozápadní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Ostravská, ul. Závodní a ul. Šumbarská; Šumbark (637734) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Školní, ul. Lidická, ul. Opletalova a ul. U Nádraží; Vratimov (785601) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Buničitá, ul. Frýdecká, ul. Datyňská a ul. Václavovická.

24.1.2023

Hradec Králové Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

Češov (623466); Kozojedy u Žlunic (797677); Sběř (746321); Slavhostice (797693); Volanice (784664); Žlunice (797707).

25.1.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

Dřevěnice (737801); Robousy (740225); Kacákova Lhota (771783); Lužany u Jičína (689238); Radim u Jičína (737828); Studeňany (737836); Řeheč (774154); Úlibice (774162).

3.2.2023

Zlín Region:

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00005

Šumice u Uherského Brodu (764230); Těšov (766828); Újezdec u Luhačovic (774081);

Uherský Brod (772984) – severní část katastrálního území od silnice č. 50.

25.1.2023

Member State: Denmark

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00007 | The parts of Lolland municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates N 54,8728; E 11,3967 | 17.1.2023 |
| DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00008 | The parts of Hedensted municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates
  N 55.7343; E 9.7477 | 27.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00007

The parts of Lolland municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates N 54,8728; E 11,3967

17.1.2023

DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00008

The parts of Hedensted municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates

N 55.7343; E 9.7477

27.1.2023

Member State: Germany

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BAYERN |
| DE-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00017 | Landkreis Tirschenreuth

  An der Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel der ST 2178 nach Osten Richtung Waldsassen folgend, an Münchenreuth vorbei nach Schottenhof. Weiter entlang der Straße TIR 20 bis zum südlichen Ende von Hundsbach, entlang der Wondreb bis zum Skilift, dem östlichen Waldrand bis zum Sammelhof folgend. Weiter Richtung Süden entlang dem Feldweg bis zur ST 2175 und dieser Richtung Osten nach Bad Neualbenreuth bis zur Kreuzung Hatzenreuth/Pfudermühle folgend. Richtung Süden an der Pfudermühle vorbei, der Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen bis zum Egnermühlbach folgend, an diesem entlang bis zum Socksteich. Über den Feldweg zur Straße TIR 25 bei Pfaffenreuth, dieser Richtung Waldsassen zur Straße TIR 22 folgend. Entlang der TIR 22 nach Süden, an Pfaffenreuth vorbei bis zur Hohe Straße. Dieser folgend Richtung Königshütte und über Altenhammer nach Forkatshof. Dem Feldweg zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen folgend, dann entlang der Gemeindegrenze bis zur B 299. Entlang der B 299 Richtung Süden nach Mitterteich und bei Neupleußen der Straße TIR 3 nach Fockenfeld folgend. Weiter entlang der TIR 15 nach Norden Richtung Neudorf, vor Neudorf dem Feldweg zur ST 2175 folgend, weiter Richtung Waldsassen bis zur Abzweigung nach Wolfsbühl, an Wolfsbühl vorbei zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen und dieser nach Norden zur Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel bis zur ST 2178 folgend. | 26.1.2023 |
| MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN |
| DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00002 | Landkreis Vorpommern-Rügen

  Gemeinde Süderholz, die Ortsteile: Behnkenhagen, Kandelin, Klein Bisdorf, Klein Zarnewanz, Lüssow, Neuendorf, Poggendorf, Wüsteney | 31.1.2023 |
| NIEDERSACHSEN |
| DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00103 | Landkreis Cloppenburg

  3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.982109/52.959481)
  Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Garrel, Bösel und Friesoythe. | 24.1.2023 |
| DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00102 | Landkreis Cuxhaven

  3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.656393/53.671901)
  Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Geestland. | 21.1.2022 |
| DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Landkreis Cloppenburg

  3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.998687/52.959784)
  Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Garrel, Bösel und Friesoythe. | 26.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

BAYERN

DE-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00017

Landkreis Tirschenreuth

An der Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel der ST 2178 nach Osten Richtung Waldsassen folgend, an Münchenreuth vorbei nach Schottenhof. Weiter entlang der Straße TIR 20 bis zum südlichen Ende von Hundsbach, entlang der Wondreb bis zum Skilift, dem östlichen Waldrand bis zum Sammelhof folgend. Weiter Richtung Süden entlang dem Feldweg bis zur ST 2175 und dieser Richtung Osten nach Bad Neualbenreuth bis zur Kreuzung Hatzenreuth/Pfudermühle folgend. Richtung Süden an der Pfudermühle vorbei, der Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen bis zum Egnermühlbach folgend, an diesem entlang bis zum Socksteich. Über den Feldweg zur Straße TIR 25 bei Pfaffenreuth, dieser Richtung Waldsassen zur Straße TIR 22 folgend. Entlang der TIR 22 nach Süden, an Pfaffenreuth vorbei bis zur Hohe Straße. Dieser folgend Richtung Königshütte und über Altenhammer nach Forkatshof. Dem Feldweg zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen folgend, dann entlang der Gemeindegrenze bis zur B 299. Entlang der B 299 Richtung Süden nach Mitterteich und bei Neupleußen der Straße TIR 3 nach Fockenfeld folgend. Weiter entlang der TIR 15 nach Norden Richtung Neudorf, vor Neudorf dem Feldweg zur ST 2175 folgend, weiter Richtung Waldsassen bis zur Abzweigung nach Wolfsbühl, an Wolfsbühl vorbei zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen und dieser nach Norden zur Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel bis zur ST 2178 folgend.

26.1.2023

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Landkreis Vorpommern-Rügen

Gemeinde Süderholz, die Ortsteile: Behnkenhagen, Kandelin, Klein Bisdorf, Klein Zarnewanz, Lüssow, Neuendorf, Poggendorf, Wüsteney

31.1.2023

NIEDERSACHSEN

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00103

Landkreis Cloppenburg

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.982109/52.959481)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Garrel, Bösel und Friesoythe.

24.1.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00102

Landkreis Cuxhaven

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.656393/53.671901)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Geestland.

21.1.2022

DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Landkreis Cloppenburg

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.998687/52.959784)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Garrel, Bösel und Friesoythe.

26.1.2023

Member State: France

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Département: Côtes-d’Armor (22) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01619 | CANIHUEL
  HAUT-CORLAY
  CORLAY
  PLUSSULIEN
  SAINT-IGEAUX
  SAINT-NICOLAS DU PELEM | 24.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00014 | CAVAN
  CAOUENNEC-LANVÉZÉAC
  LANNION
  PLOUBEZRE
  TONQUÉDEC | 31.1.2023 |
| Département:Creuse (23) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00005 | FLAYAT | 8.2.2023 |
| Département: Dordogne (24) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01481
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01480
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01517
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01558
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01559
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01581 | ARCHIGNAC
  MARCILLAC SAINT QUENTIN
  PAULIN
  SAINT CREPIN ET CARLUCET
  SAINT GENIES
  SALIGNAC EYVIGUES | 18.1.2023 |
| Département: Gers (32) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01605
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01612
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00008
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00012
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00013 | AIGNAN
  BEAUMARCHES
  BOUZON-GELLENAVE
  COULOUME-MONDEBAT
  FUSTEROUAU
  IZOTGES
  LASSERADE
  LOUSSOUS-DEBAT
  POUYDRAGUIN
  SABAZAN
  TASQUE
  TERMES-D’ARMAGNAC | 28.1.2023 |
| Département: Ille-et-Vilaine (35) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00004 | LECOUSSE
  FOUGERES
  LAIGNELET
  SAINT GERMAIN EN COGLES,
  LE CHATELIER,
  PARIGNE
  LANDEAN | 28.1.2023 |
| Département: Indre (36) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00405 | POULAINES Partie de commune située au Sud de la D960
  VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Sud- Est du Nahon
  VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Est de la D956 et au Nord de la D109 | 16.1.2023 |
| Département: Loire-Atlantique (44) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01466
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01591
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01592
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01609
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01616
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00001
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00015
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00009 | VIEILLEVIGNE
  CORCOUE SUR LORGNE
  LEGE
  SAINT LUMINE DE COUTAIS
  SAINT PHILBERT DE GRAND LIEU
  LA LIMOUZINIERE
  PAULX
  TOUVOIS
  REMOUILLE
  AIGREFEUILLE SUR MAINE
  SAINTE LUMINE DE CLISSON | 28.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01554 | BOUSSAY
  GETIGNE | 19.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498 | Andrezé
  Beaupréau
  Gesté
  Jallais
  La Chapelle-du-Genêt
  La Jubaudière
  La Poitevinière
  Le Pin-en-Mauges
  Saint-Philbert-en-Mauges
  Villedieu-la-Blouère
  La Romagne
  Le Fief-Sauvin
  La Renaudière
  Montfaucon-Montigné
  Roussay
  Saint-André-de-la-Marche
  Saint-Macaire-en-Mauges | 18.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00010 | MESANGER
  TEILLE | 27.1.2023 |
| Département: Maine-et-Loire (49) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01457
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01471
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01472
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01483
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01485
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01486
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01487
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01489
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01496
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01506
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01511
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01512
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01516
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01518
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01519
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01524
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01458
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01467
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01535
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01545
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01547
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01549
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01548
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01564
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01571
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01573
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01578
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01579
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01580
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01586
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01594
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01603
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00016 | Andrezé
  Beaupréau
  Gesté
  Jallais
  La Chapelle-du-Genêt
  La Jubaudière
  La Poitevinière
  Le Pin-en-Mauges
  Saint-Philbert-en-Mauges
  Villedieu-la-Blouère
  La Romagne
  Le Fief-Sauvin
  La Renaudière
  Montfaucon-Montigné
  Roussay
  Saint-André-de-la-Marche
  Saint-Macaire-en-Mauges
  Torfou
  LES CERQUEUX
  YZERNAY
  SEVREMOINE | 30.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01606 | LOUVAINES
  NYOISEAU
  SEGRE’ | 16.1.2023 |
| Département: Manche (50) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00420 | HUBERVILLE
  MONTAIGU LA BRISETTE
  SAINT CYR
  SAINT GERMAIN DE TOURNEBUT
  SAUSSEMESNIL
  TAMERVILLE
  VALOGNES | 19.1.2023 |
| Département: Rhône (69) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01597 | L’ARBRESLE
  SAIN BEL
  SAVIGNY | 18.1.2023 |
| Département: Deux – Sèvres (79) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01411
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01415
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01414
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01417
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01430
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01436
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01428
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01447
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01448
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01449
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01477
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01450
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01475
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01474
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01482
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01484
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01473
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01502
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01504
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01515
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01499
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01521
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01522
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01532
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01544
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01532
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01544
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01569
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01587
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01588 | L’ABSIE
  ARGENTONNAY
  BOISME
  BRESSUIRE
  BRETIGNOLLES
  LE BREUIL-BERNARD
  LE BUSSEAU
  CERIZAY
  CHANTELOUP
  LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-ETIENNE
  LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-LAURENT
  CIRIERES
  COMBRAND
  COURLAY
  GENNETON
  LARGEASSE
  MAULEON
  MONTRAVERS
  NEUVY-BOUIN
  NUEIL-LES-AUBIERS
  LA PETITE-BOISSIERE
  LE PIN
  PUGNY
  SAINT-AMAND-SUR-SEVRE
  SAINT-ANDRE-SUR-SEVRE
  SAINT-AUBIN-DU-PLAIN
  SAINT-PAUL-EN-GATINE
  SAINT PIERRE DES ECHAUBROGNES
  TRAYES
  VAL-EN-VIGNES
  VERNOUX-EN-GATINE | 19.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01449 | MENIGOUTE
  VASLES | 19.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01476
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01501 | BRULAIN
  MOUGON-THORIGNE
  PRAHECQ
  SAINTE-BLANDINE
  SAINT-MARTIN-DE-BERNEGOUE | 19.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01617 | LAGEON
  VIENNAY | 6.2.2023 |
| Département: Vendée (85) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01523 | GROSBREUIL
  CHÂTEAU D’OLONNE
  SAINTE FOY
  LE GIROUARD
  GROSBREUIL
  TALMONT SAINT HILAIRE
  LES ACHARDS
  SAINT MATHURIN
  SAINTE FLAIVE DES LOUPS | 23.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01526 | AUIGNY LES CLOUZEAUX
  BEAULIEU SOUS LA ROCHE
  LANDERONDE
  LA ROCHE SUR YON
  VENANSAULT | 23.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01465
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01468
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01439
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01453 | CHALLANS
  LE PERRIER
  SALLERTAINE
  SOULLANS
  APPREMONT
  COMMEQUIERS
  LA CHAPELLE PALLAU
  SAINT PAUL MONT PENIT
  SAINT CHRISTOPHE DU LIGNERON | 23.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01536 | LES LUCS SUR BOULOGNE
  MONTREVERD
  ROCHESERVIERE
  SAINT PHILBERT DE BOUAINE | 23.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01424
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01426
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01438
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01440 FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01441
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01442
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01446
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01451
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01454
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01455
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01456
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01459
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01460
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01461
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01462
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01463
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01464
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01469
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01470
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01478
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01479
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01488
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01490
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01491
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01493
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01494
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01495
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01500
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01503
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01507
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01508
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01509
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01510
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01513
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01514
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01520
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01525
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01527
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01528
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01529
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01530
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01531
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01533
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01537
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01539
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01540
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01542
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01543
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01546
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01551
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01552
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01553
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01555
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01556
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01557 FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01560
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01561
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01562
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01563
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01565
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01566
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01567
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01568
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01570
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01572
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01574
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01575
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01576
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01577
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01583
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01585
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01589
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01590
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01593
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01595
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01596
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01599
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01600
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01601
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01602
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01604
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01607
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01608
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01610
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01611
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01613
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01614
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01615
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01618
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01620
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00002
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00003
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00004
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00005
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00006 | ANTIGNY
  BAZOGES EN PAILLERS
  BAZOGES EN PAREDS
  BEAUREPAIRE
  BOUFFERE
  BOURNEZEAU
  CHANTONNAY
  CHANVERRIE
  CHAVAGNES EN PAILLERS
  CHAVAGNES LES REDOUX
  CHEFFOIS
  FOUGERE
  LA BOISSIERE DE MONT TAIGU
  LA BRUFFIERE
  LA CAILLERE SAINT HILAIRE
  LA CHATAIGNERAIE
  LA GUYONNIERE
  LA JAUDONNIERE
  LA MEILLERAIE TILLAY
  LA TARDIERE
  LE BOUPERE
  LES EPESSES
  LES HERBIERS
  LES LANDES GENUSSON
  MENOMBLET
  MONSIREIGNE
  MONTAIGU
  MONTOURNAIS
  MORTAGNE SUR SEVRE
  MOUCHAMPS
  MOUILLERON SAINT GERMAIN
  POUZAUGES
  REAUMUR
  ROCHETREJOUX
  SAINT AUBIN DES ORMEAUX
  SAINT CYR DES GATS
  SAINT GEORGES DE MONTAIGU
  SAINT GERMAIN DE PRINCAY
  SAINT HILAIRE DE LOULAY
  SAINT HILAIRE LE VOUHIS
  SAINT LAURENT SUR SEVRE
  SAINT MALO DU BOIS
  SAINT MARS LA REORTHE
  SAINT MARTIN DES NOYERS
  SAINT MARTINS DES TILLEULS
  SAINT LMAURICE LE GIRARD
  SAINT MESMIN
  SAINT PAUL EN PÄREDS
  SAINT PIERRE DU CHEMIN
  SAINT PROUANT
  SAINT SULPICE EN PAREDS
  SAINT VINCENT STERLANGES
  SAINTE CECILE
  SEVREMONT
  SIGOURNAIS
  TALLUD SAINTE GEMME
  THOUARSAIS BOUILDROUX
  TIFFAUGES
  VENDRENNES | 23.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Département: Côtes-d’Armor (22)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01619

CANIHUEL

HAUT-CORLAY

CORLAY

PLUSSULIEN

SAINT-IGEAUX

SAINT-NICOLAS DU PELEM

24.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00014

CAVAN

CAOUENNEC-LANVÉZÉAC

LANNION

PLOUBEZRE

TONQUÉDEC

31.1.2023

Département:Creuse (23)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00005

FLAYAT

8.2.2023

Département: Dordogne (24)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01481

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01480

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01517

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01558

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01559

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01581

ARCHIGNAC

MARCILLAC SAINT QUENTIN

PAULIN

SAINT CREPIN ET CARLUCET

SAINT GENIES

SALIGNAC EYVIGUES

18.1.2023

Département: Gers (32)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01605

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01612

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00012

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00013

AIGNAN

BEAUMARCHES

BOUZON-GELLENAVE

COULOUME-MONDEBAT

FUSTEROUAU

IZOTGES

LASSERADE

LOUSSOUS-DEBAT

POUYDRAGUIN

SABAZAN

TASQUE

TERMES-D’ARMAGNAC

28.1.2023

Département: Ille-et-Vilaine (35)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00004

LECOUSSE

FOUGERES

LAIGNELET

SAINT GERMAIN EN COGLES,

LE CHATELIER,

PARIGNE

LANDEAN

28.1.2023

Département: Indre (36)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00405

POULAINES Partie de commune située au Sud de la D960

VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Sud- Est du Nahon

VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Est de la D956 et au Nord de la D109

16.1.2023

Département: Loire-Atlantique (44)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01466

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01591

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01592

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01609

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01616

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00015

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00009

VIEILLEVIGNE

CORCOUE SUR LORGNE

LEGE

SAINT LUMINE DE COUTAIS

SAINT PHILBERT DE GRAND LIEU

LA LIMOUZINIERE

PAULX

TOUVOIS

REMOUILLE

AIGREFEUILLE SUR MAINE

SAINTE LUMINE DE CLISSON

28.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01554

BOUSSAY

GETIGNE

19.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498

Andrezé

Beaupréau

Gesté

Jallais

La Chapelle-du-Genêt

La Jubaudière

La Poitevinière

Le Pin-en-Mauges

Saint-Philbert-en-Mauges

Villedieu-la-Blouère

La Romagne

Le Fief-Sauvin

La Renaudière

Montfaucon-Montigné

Roussay

Saint-André-de-la-Marche

Saint-Macaire-en-Mauges

18.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00010

MESANGER

TEILLE

27.1.2023

Département: Maine-et-Loire (49)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01457

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01471

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01472

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01483

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01485

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01486

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01487

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01489

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01496

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01506

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01511

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01512

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01516

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01518

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01519

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01524

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01458

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01467

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01535

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01545

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01547

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01549

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01548

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01564

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01571

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01573

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01578

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01579

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01580

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01586

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01594

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01603

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00016

Andrezé

Beaupréau

Gesté

Jallais

La Chapelle-du-Genêt

La Jubaudière

La Poitevinière

Le Pin-en-Mauges

Saint-Philbert-en-Mauges

Villedieu-la-Blouère

La Romagne

Le Fief-Sauvin

La Renaudière

Montfaucon-Montigné

Roussay

Saint-André-de-la-Marche

Saint-Macaire-en-Mauges

Torfou

LES CERQUEUX

YZERNAY

SEVREMOINE

30.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01606

LOUVAINES

NYOISEAU

SEGRE’

16.1.2023

Département: Manche (50)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00420

HUBERVILLE

MONTAIGU LA BRISETTE

SAINT CYR

SAINT GERMAIN DE TOURNEBUT

SAUSSEMESNIL

TAMERVILLE

VALOGNES

19.1.2023

Département: Rhône (69)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01597

L’ARBRESLE

SAIN BEL

SAVIGNY

18.1.2023

Département: Deux – Sèvres (79)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01411

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01415

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01414

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01417

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01430

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01436

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01428

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01447

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01448

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01449

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01477

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01450

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01475

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01474

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01482

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01484

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01473

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01502

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01504

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01515

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01499

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01521

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01522

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01532

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01544

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01532

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01544

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01569

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01587

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01588

L’ABSIE

ARGENTONNAY

BOISME

BRESSUIRE

BRETIGNOLLES

LE BREUIL-BERNARD

LE BUSSEAU

CERIZAY

CHANTELOUP

LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-ETIENNE

LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-LAURENT

CIRIERES

COMBRAND

COURLAY

GENNETON

LARGEASSE

MAULEON

MONTRAVERS

NEUVY-BOUIN

NUEIL-LES-AUBIERS

LA PETITE-BOISSIERE

LE PIN

PUGNY

SAINT-AMAND-SUR-SEVRE

SAINT-ANDRE-SUR-SEVRE

SAINT-AUBIN-DU-PLAIN

SAINT-PAUL-EN-GATINE

SAINT PIERRE DES ECHAUBROGNES

TRAYES

VAL-EN-VIGNES

VERNOUX-EN-GATINE

19.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01449

MENIGOUTE

VASLES

19.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01476

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01501

BRULAIN

MOUGON-THORIGNE

PRAHECQ

SAINTE-BLANDINE

SAINT-MARTIN-DE-BERNEGOUE

19.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01617

LAGEON

VIENNAY

6.2.2023

Département: Vendée (85)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01523

GROSBREUIL

CHÂTEAU D’OLONNE

SAINTE FOY

LE GIROUARD

GROSBREUIL

TALMONT SAINT HILAIRE

LES ACHARDS

SAINT MATHURIN

SAINTE FLAIVE DES LOUPS

23.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01526

AUIGNY LES CLOUZEAUX

BEAULIEU SOUS LA ROCHE

LANDERONDE

LA ROCHE SUR YON

VENANSAULT

23.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01465

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01468

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01439

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01453

CHALLANS

LE PERRIER

SALLERTAINE

SOULLANS

APPREMONT

COMMEQUIERS

LA CHAPELLE PALLAU

SAINT PAUL MONT PENIT

SAINT CHRISTOPHE DU LIGNERON

23.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01536

LES LUCS SUR BOULOGNE

MONTREVERD

ROCHESERVIERE

SAINT PHILBERT DE BOUAINE

23.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01424

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01426

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01438

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01440 FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01441

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01442

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01446

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01451

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01454

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01455

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01456

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01459

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01460

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01461

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01462

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01463

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01464

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01469

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01470

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01478

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01479

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01488

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01490

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01491

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01493

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01494

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01495

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01500

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01503

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01507

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01508

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01509

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01510

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01513

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01514

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01520

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01525

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01527

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01528

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01529

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01530

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01531

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01533

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01537

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01539

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01540

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01542

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01543

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01546

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01551

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01552

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01553

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01555

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01556

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01557 FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01560

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01561

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01562

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01563

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01565

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01566

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01567

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01568

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01570

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01572

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01574

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01575

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01576

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01577

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01583

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01585

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01589

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01590

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01593

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01595

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01596

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01599

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01600

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01601

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01602

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01604

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01607

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01608

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01610

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01611

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01613

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01614

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01615

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01618

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01620

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00005

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

ANTIGNY

BAZOGES EN PAILLERS

BAZOGES EN PAREDS

BEAUREPAIRE

BOUFFERE

BOURNEZEAU

CHANTONNAY

CHANVERRIE

CHAVAGNES EN PAILLERS

CHAVAGNES LES REDOUX

CHEFFOIS

FOUGERE

LA BOISSIERE DE MONT TAIGU

LA BRUFFIERE

LA CAILLERE SAINT HILAIRE

LA CHATAIGNERAIE

LA GUYONNIERE

LA JAUDONNIERE

LA MEILLERAIE TILLAY

LA TARDIERE

LE BOUPERE

LES EPESSES

LES HERBIERS

LES LANDES GENUSSON

MENOMBLET

MONSIREIGNE

MONTAIGU

MONTOURNAIS

MORTAGNE SUR SEVRE

MOUCHAMPS

MOUILLERON SAINT GERMAIN

POUZAUGES

REAUMUR

ROCHETREJOUX

SAINT AUBIN DES ORMEAUX

SAINT CYR DES GATS

SAINT GEORGES DE MONTAIGU

SAINT GERMAIN DE PRINCAY

SAINT HILAIRE DE LOULAY

SAINT HILAIRE LE VOUHIS

SAINT LAURENT SUR SEVRE

SAINT MALO DU BOIS

SAINT MARS LA REORTHE

SAINT MARTIN DES NOYERS

SAINT MARTINS DES TILLEULS

SAINT LMAURICE LE GIRARD

SAINT MESMIN

SAINT PAUL EN PÄREDS

SAINT PIERRE DU CHEMIN

SAINT PROUANT

SAINT SULPICE EN PAREDS

SAINT VINCENT STERLANGES

SAINTE CECILE

SEVREMONT

SIGOURNAIS

TALLUD SAINTE GEMME

THOUARSAIS BOUILDROUX

TIFFAUGES

VENDRENNES

23.1.2023

Member State: Italy

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Region: Veneto |
| IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00054 | The area of the parts of Veneto Region (contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.355299708, E10.860377854 | 19.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Region: Veneto

IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00054

The area of the parts of Veneto Region (contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.355299708, E10.860377854

19.1.2023

Member State: Hungary

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bács-Kiskun vármegye |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00002 | Császártöltés, Hajós és Homokhegy települések közigazgatási területeinek a 46.417287 és a 19.158443 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 27.1.2023 |
| Hajdú-Bihar vármegye |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00298
  HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00299
  HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Hajdúszoboszló és Nádudvar települések közigazgatási területének a 47.471520 és a 21.203237, a 47.485876 és a 21.170037, valamint a 47.448133 és a 21.156837 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 27.1.2023 |
| Békés vármegye |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003 | Battonya és Dombegyház települések közigazgatási területének a 46.298611 és a 21.048904 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 3.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Bács-Kiskun vármegye

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Császártöltés, Hajós és Homokhegy települések közigazgatási területeinek a 46.417287 és a 19.158443 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

27.1.2023

Hajdú-Bihar vármegye

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00298

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00299

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Hajdúszoboszló és Nádudvar települések közigazgatási területének a 47.471520 és a 21.203237, a 47.485876 és a 21.170037, valamint a 47.448133 és a 21.156837 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

27.1.2023

Békés vármegye

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

Battonya és Dombegyház települések közigazgatási területének a 46.298611 és a 21.048904 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

3.2.2023

Member State: Austria

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| AT-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-15 | Bezirk Braunau: | in der Gemeinde Eggelsberg die Katastralgemeinden Eggelsberg, Gundertshausen, Ibm; in der Gemeinde Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Aschau, Vormoosen; in der Gemeinde Franking die Katastralgemeinden Eggenham; in der Gemeinde Geretsberg die Katastralgemeinde Lehrsberg; in der Gemeinde Moosdorf die Katastralgemeinden Moosdorf, Stadl |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

AT-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-15

Bezirk Braunau:

in der Gemeinde Eggelsberg die Katastralgemeinden Eggelsberg, Gundertshausen, Ibm; in der Gemeinde Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Aschau, Vormoosen; in der Gemeinde Franking die Katastralgemeinden Eggenham; in der Gemeinde Geretsberg die Katastralgemeinde Lehrsberg; in der Gemeinde Moosdorf die Katastralgemeinden Moosdorf, Stadl

6.2.2023

Member State: Poland

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00052
  PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00053
  PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00060
  PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00061
  PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00067
  PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00069 | W województwie łódzkim powiat zduńskowolski:






  1. | w gminie Sędziejowice: Bilew, Dobra, Kustrzyce, Marzenin, Niecenia, Pruszków, Rososza, Wola Marzeńska, Wrzesiny; |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00052

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00053

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00060

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00061

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00067

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00069

W województwie łódzkim powiat zduńskowolski:

1.

w gminie Sędziejowice: Bilew, Dobra, Kustrzyce, Marzenin, Niecenia, Pruszków, Rososza, Wola Marzeńska, Wrzesiny;

W województwie łódzkim powiat łaski:

| 1. | w gminie Łask – obszar wiejski: Bałucz, Kolonia Bałucz, Młynisko, Borszewice, Grabina, Kolonia Bilew, Kopyść, Mikołajówek, Okup Mały, Okup Wielki, Ulejów, Wincentów, Sięganów, Wola Bałucka, Zielęcice; |
| --- | --- |

1.

w gminie Łask – obszar wiejski: Bałucz, Kolonia Bałucz, Młynisko, Borszewice, Grabina, Kolonia Bilew, Kopyść, Mikołajówek, Okup Mały, Okup Wielki, Ulejów, Wincentów, Sięganów, Wola Bałucka, Zielęcice;

| 2. | w gminie Zduńska Wola: Zduńska Wola, Annopole Nowe, Biały Ług, Czechy, Gajewniki, Gajewniki Kolonia, Henryków, Izabelów, Janiszewice, Karsznice, Kłady, Korczew, Krobanów, Michałów, Ochraniew, Opiesin, Pratków, Rębieskie Nowe, Rębieskie Stare, Suchoczasy, Tymienice, Wojsławice, Wólka Wojsławska, Wymysłów, Izabelów Mały, Andrzejów, Krobanówek, Ostrówek; |
| --- | --- |

2.

w gminie Zduńska Wola: Zduńska Wola, Annopole Nowe, Biały Ług, Czechy, Gajewniki, Gajewniki Kolonia, Henryków, Izabelów, Janiszewice, Karsznice, Kłady, Korczew, Krobanów, Michałów, Ochraniew, Opiesin, Pratków, Rębieskie Nowe, Rębieskie Stare, Suchoczasy, Tymienice, Wojsławice, Wólka Wojsławska, Wymysłów, Izabelów Mały, Andrzejów, Krobanówek, Ostrówek;

| 3. | w gminie Zapolice: Swędzieniejewice, Swędzieniejewice Kolonia, Wygiełzów; |
| --- | --- |

3.

w gminie Zapolice: Swędzieniejewice, Swędzieniejewice Kolonia, Wygiełzów;

| 4. | w gminie Szadek – obszar wiejski: Kotlinki, Kotliny, Kromolin Stary, Kromolin Nowy, Wielka Wieś; |
| --- | --- |

4.

w gminie Szadek – obszar wiejski: Kotlinki, Kotliny, Kromolin Stary, Kromolin Nowy, Wielka Wieś;

| 5. | gmina Szadek (gm. miejska): Szadek; |
| --- | --- |

5.

gmina Szadek (gm. miejska): Szadek;

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.56326/19.03881

22.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00055

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00056

HPAI(P)-2023-00002

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

W województwie pomorskim w powiecie człuchowskim:

| 1. | W gminie Debrzno: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka. |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Debrzno: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka.

W gminie Człuchów: Barkówko

25.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00057

W województwie łódzkim część gminy Uniejów,

W województwie wielkopolskim część gminy Przykona

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.97360/18.73595

25.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00058

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gminy: Koluszki, Koluszki miasto w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy: Koluszki, Koluszki miasto w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim

| 2. | Część gminy Rokiciny w powiecie tomaszowskim zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.71136/19.82636 |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Rokiciny w powiecie tomaszowskim zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.71136/19.82636

19.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00059

W województwie wielkopolskim części gmin: Gołuchów i Pleszew w powiecie pleszewskim zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.86127/17.84609

20.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00062

W województwie wielkopolskim część gmin: Żelazków, Ceków-Kolonia i Mycielin w powiecie kaliskim zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS:

51.851222/18.235528

19.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00063

W województwie śląskim część gminy Łazy zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 50.42754/19.34959

20.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00064

W województwie wielkopolskim części gmin: Turek, Przykona, Dobra, Kawęczyn w powiecie tureckim zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.96866/18.58093

21.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00065

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Grabów nad Prosną i Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Grabów nad Prosną i Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim.

| 3. | Część gminy Brzeziny w powiecie kaliskim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Brzeziny w powiecie kaliskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.5270/18.16422

22.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00066

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.48160/16.43688

22.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00068

W województwie dolnośląskim:

| 1. | Część gminy Wińsko w powiecie wołowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Wińsko w powiecie wołowskim,

| 2. | Część gminy Wąsosz w powiecie górowskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Wąsosz w powiecie górowskim,

| 3. | Część gminy Żmigród w powiecie trzebnickim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Żmigród w powiecie trzebnickim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.47256/16.75511

21.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Pleszew, Chocz, Czermin w powiecie pleszewskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Pleszew, Chocz, Czermin w powiecie pleszewskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.93958/17.85476

26.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

W województwie wielkopolskim część gmin: Żelazków, Opatówek, Ceków-Kolonia w powiecie kaliskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.79300/18.19184

26.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00005

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00007

W województwie wielkopolskim

| 1. | W gminie Opatówek: Szałe, Chełmce, Zduny, Trojanów, Cienia Pierwsza, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Porwity, Opatówek, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Kościelna, Zawady |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Opatówek: Szałe, Chełmce, Zduny, Trojanów, Cienia Pierwsza, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Porwity, Opatówek, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Kościelna, Zawady

| 2. | W gminie Kalisz, osiedle Winiary w mieście Kalisz; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Kalisz, osiedle Winiary w mieście Kalisz;

| 3. | W gminie Godziesze Wielkie, miejscowość Wolica; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Godziesze Wielkie, miejscowość Wolica;

w powiecie kaliskim.

| 1. | W gminie Sieroszewice: Wielowieś, Namysłaki, Masanów, Strzyżew |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Sieroszewice: Wielowieś, Namysłaki, Masanów, Strzyżew

w powiecie ostrowskim

| 1. | W gminie Mikstat: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kaliszkowice Ołobockie, Kaliszkowice Kaliskie, Mikstat, Kotłów, część miejscowości Mikstat Pustkowie – na północ od drogi gminnej G832559, część miejscowości Przedborów – na północ od drogi wojewódzkiej nr 447 |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Mikstat: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kaliszkowice Ołobockie, Kaliszkowice Kaliskie, Mikstat, Kotłów, część miejscowości Mikstat Pustkowie – na północ od drogi gminnej G832559, część miejscowości Przedborów – na północ od drogi wojewódzkiej nr 447

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

31.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

W województwie kujawsko – pomorskim w powiecie grudziądzkim:

| 1. | W gminie Świecie nad Osą: Linowo, Rychnowo, Świecie nad Osą, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Świecie nad Osą: Linowo, Rychnowo, Świecie nad Osą,

| 2. | W gminie Gruta: Boguszewo, Słup, Gruta, Jasiewo, Mełno |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Gruta: Boguszewo, Słup, Gruta, Jasiewo, Mełno

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 53.44146/19.03353

28.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00009

W województwie lubuskim:

Osiedla miasta Zielona Góra: Ochla, Jarogniewice, Kiełpin i Jeleniów w Dzielnicy Nowe Miasto w powiecie zielonogórskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.87236/15.47649

7.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00010

W województwie łódzkim część gmin: Łęczyca, Witonia, Góry św. Małgorzaty w powiecie łęczyckim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.10725/19.25505

31.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00011

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00014

W województwie wielkopolskim w powiecie kaliskim:

| 1. | W gminie Koźminek: Dąbrowa, Gać Kaliska, Ksawerów, Marianów, Nowy Karolew, Oszczeklin, Smółki, Stary Nakwasin, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Koźminek: Dąbrowa, Gać Kaliska, Ksawerów, Marianów, Nowy Karolew, Oszczeklin, Smółki, Stary Nakwasin,

| 2. | W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Mała, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka, |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Mała, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka,

W gminie Szczytniki: Cieszyków, Gorzuchy, Krowica Pusta, Krowica Zawodnia, Marchwacz, Marchwacz-Kolonia, Mroczki Wielkie, Radliczyce, Trzęsów, Tymieniec

5.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00012

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gminy Opatówek w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Opatówek w powiecie kaliskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.733997/18.209118

2.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00013

W województwie opolskim w powiecie namysłowskim:

| 1. | W gminie Pokój: Domaradz, Krogulna, Pokój, Siedlice, Zieleniec, Jagienna, Kozuby, Żabiniec. |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Pokój: Domaradz, Krogulna, Pokój, Siedlice, Zieleniec, Jagienna, Kozuby, Żabiniec.

2.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00015

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gminy Kępno w powiecie kępińskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Kępno w powiecie kępińskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Doruchów w powiecie ostrzeszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Doruchów w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gminy Wieruszów w powiecie wieruszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Wieruszów w powiecie wieruszowskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.35345/18.05265

5.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00016

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00018

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | W gminie Koźminek: Bogdanów, Pietrzyków, Stary Nakwasin; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Koźminek: Bogdanów, Pietrzyków, Stary Nakwasin;

| 2. | W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Michałów Drugi, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Michałów Drugi, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka;

| 3. | W gminie Szczytnik: Krowica Zawodnia, Marchwacz. |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Szczytnik: Krowica Zawodnia, Marchwacz.

w powiecie kaliskim.

6.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00017

W województwie opolskim w gminie Strzeleczki: Dobra, Kujawy, Moszna, Racławiczki, Smolarnia, Strzeleczki, Ścigów, Zielina w powiecie krapkowickim.

6.2.2023

Part B

Surveillance zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Articles 1 and 3:

Member State: Belgium

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BE-HPAI(P)-2022-00012
  BE-HPAI(P)-2022-00013 | Those parts of the municipalities Alveringem, Diksmuide, Houthulst, Ieper, Kortemark, Langemark-Poelkapelle,Lo-Reninge, Poperinge, Staden and Vleteren, extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 2,854729, lat 50,961658. | 25.1.2023 |
| Those parts of the municipalities Diksmuide, Houthulst, Ieper, Langemark-Poelkapelle and Lo-Reninge contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 2,854729, lat 50,961658. | 17.1.2023 – 25.1.2023 |
| BE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Those parts of the municipalities Awans, Bassenge, Bilzen, Borgloon, Crisnée, Heers, Herstappe, Hoeselt, Juprelle, Kortessem, Oreye, Riemst, Tongeren and Wellen, extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44421, lat 50,79007. | 10.2.2023 |
| Those parts of the municipalities Borgloon, Hoeselt, Kortessem and Tongeren contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44421, lat 50,79007. | 2.2.2023- 10.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

BE-HPAI(P)-2022-00012

BE-HPAI(P)-2022-00013

Those parts of the municipalities Alveringem, Diksmuide, Houthulst, Ieper, Kortemark, Langemark-Poelkapelle,Lo-Reninge, Poperinge, Staden and Vleteren, extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 2,854729, lat 50,961658.

25.1.2023

Those parts of the municipalities Diksmuide, Houthulst, Ieper, Langemark-Poelkapelle and Lo-Reninge contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 2,854729, lat 50,961658.

17.1.2023 – 25.1.2023

BE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Those parts of the municipalities Awans, Bassenge, Bilzen, Borgloon, Crisnée, Heers, Herstappe, Hoeselt, Juprelle, Kortessem, Oreye, Riemst, Tongeren and Wellen, extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44421, lat 50,79007.

10.2.2023

Those parts of the municipalities Borgloon, Hoeselt, Kortessem and Tongeren contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44421, lat 50,79007.

2.2.2023- 10.2.2023

Member State: Czechia

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| South Bohemian Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00006 | Bělčice (601870); Hostišovice (645796); Podruhlí (645818); Závišín u Bělčic (791288); Bezdědovice (603457); Blatná (605247); Drahenický Málkov (631558); Hněvkov u Mačkova (689726); Skaličany (748005); Buzice (616401); Cerhonice (617571); Čimelice (623822); Krsice (623831); Hornosín (644765); Horosedly (644781); Chlum u Blatné (651494); Chobot (775754); Králova Lhota (672581); Laziště (672599); Lety (680770); Lom u Blatné (86549); Míreč (686557); Bořice u Mirotic (756822); Jarotice (756831); Mirotice (695505); Radobytce (617601); Stráž u Mirotic (756849); Strážovice u Mirotic (756857); Boješice (606898); Kakovice (696170); Mirovice (695726); Ohař (606901); Plíškovice (721875); Ráztely (721883); Touškov (767883); Myslín (700631); Vahlovice (700894); Dolní Nerestce (703699); Horní Nerestce (703702); Mužetice (700509); Němčice u Sedlice (746886); Smetanova Lhota (750867); Pacelice (762750); Škvořetice (762768);
  Uzenice (775771) – západní část katastrálního území, přičemž hranici na východě tvoří silnice č. 1735 vedoucí od severní hranice katastrálního území k jižní hranici katastrálního území. | 4.2.2023 |
| Boudy (695483); Minice u Mišovic (696188); Lučkovice (695491); Mišovice (696196); Pohoří u Mirovic (696200); Svučice (761621); Kožlí u Myštic (700835); Myštice (700851); Výšice (700908); Rakovice (623849); Uzeničky (775789);
  Uzenice (775771) – východní část katastrálního území, přičemž hranici na západě tvoří silnice č. 1735 vedoucí od severní hranice katastrálního území k jižní hranici katastrálního území. | 27.1.2023 – 4.2.2023 |
| Central Bohemian Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00002 | Břekova Lhota (633569); Dublovice (633577); Chramosty (653667); Líchovy (683825); Zvírotice (793990); Velké Heřmanice (778796); Bolechovice II (798479); Dobrošovice (658626); Jesenice u Sedlčan (658651); Mezné (788180); Kňovice (667153); Plešiště (673536); Hořetice (645133); Krchleby (674427); Křečovice u Neveklova (675547); Nahoruby (701131); Vlkonice u Neveklova (789631); Živohošť (701157); Křepenice (675938); Strnadice (762105); Nalžovice (701491); Nalžovické Podhájí (701505); Kamenice u Nedrahovic (702242); Nedrahovice (702251); Nedrahovické Podhájí (702269); Radeč u Nedrahovic (702277); Bratřejov (702536); Křemenice (702552); Libčice u Nechvalic (702561); Nechvalice (702587); Ředice (744913); Osečany (712701); Velběhy (712728); Počepice (723151); Rovina (742091); Skuhrov u Počepic (723169); Vitín u Počepic (723177); Luhy u Prosenické Lhoty (733326); Prosenická Lhota (733342); Suchdol u Prosenické Lhoty (733351); Příčovy (735833); Radíč (737674); Oříkov (646571); Solopysky u Třebnic (770043); Třebnice (770116); Bolechovice I (626279); Divišovice (626287); Kvasejovice (678104); Měšetice (678139); Nové Dvory u Kvasejovic (678155); Skrýšov u Svatého Jana (760188); Štětkovice (763730); Bezmíř (784435); Minartice (784451); Vojkov u Votic (784486); Martinice u Votic (692051); Šebáňovice (762113); Vrchotovy Janovice (786489); Hrabří (646563); Pořešice (725927); Vápenice u Vysokého Chlumce (788406); Vysoký Chlumec (788414);
  Vysoká u Kosovy Hory (788198) – vyjma části obce Dohnalova Lhota; Zderadice (792331) – vyjma části obce Zderadice. | 2.2.2023 |
| Janov u Kosovy Hory (670006); Kosova Hora (670014); Bor u Sedlčan (702234); Doubravice u Sedlčan (682802); Libíň (682811); Sedlčany (746533); Sestrouň (746568);
  Vysoká u Kosovy Hory (788198) – část obce Dohnalova Lhota. | 25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00004 | Dubečno (666912); Dvořiště (712868); Chroustov (654248); Kamilov (750689); Kněžice u Městce Králové (666921); Malá Strana u Chotěšic (653080); Nouzov u Dymokur (704920); Nová Ves u Chotěšic (653098); Osek (712876); Sloveč (750697); Střihov (750701); Záhornice u Městce Králové (789828). | 3.2.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00006 | Bor u Březnice (607240); Březnice (614271); Bubovice u Březnice (784800); Drahenice (631540); Hudčice (649236); Koupě (671207); Martinice u Březnice (692085); Nestrašovice (761320); Počaply u Březnice (722952); Stražiště (722961); Zalužany (790761). | 4.2.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00007 | Chudoplesy (654809); Bradlec (608980); Brodce nad Jizerou (612685); Březno u Mladé Boleslavi (614467); Struhy (757098); Dalovice u Mladé Boleslavi (624578); Dlouhá Lhota u Mladé Boleslavi (626384); Chloumek u Mladé Boleslavi (651371); Libichov (682799); Sýčina (761630); Bechov (601501); Dolní Stakory (630195); Domousnice (631001); Skyšice (745821); Hrušov nad Jizerou (648736); Husí Lhota (649660); Charvatce u Jabkenic (650641); Chudíř (654795); Jabkenice (655864); Jizerní Vtelno (661457); Lítkovice u Kněžmostu (708771); Násedlnice (669369); Úhelnice (772771); Kobylnice (667463); Horní Stakory (644137); Kosmonosy (669857); Kosořice (669989); Krnsko (674788); Řehnice (674818); Ledce u Mladé Boleslavi (679623); Lhotky u Mladé Boleslavi (681466); Loučeň (686930); Luštěnice (689106); Voděrady u Luštěnic (689114); Mcely (692344); Bezděčín u Mladé Boleslavi (696579; Čejetice u Mladé Boleslavi (696641); Debř (696692); Chrást u Mladé Boleslavi (696587); Jemníky u Mladé Boleslavi (696455); Mladá Boleslav (696293); Podlázky (900125); Němčice u Luštěnic (702943); Nepřevázka (703559); Nová Telib (705276); Obrubce (708798); Pěčice (718742); Petkovy (719609); Písková Lhota (720968); Plazy (721590); Prodašice (733121); Rabakov (737089); Řepov (745286); Řitonice (745812); Seletice (670855); Bratronice u Luštěnic (609625); Rejšice (740055); Smilovice u Luštěnic (751014); Újezd u Luštěnic (773581); Újezdec u Luštěnic (773590); Strašnov (756300); Sukorady u Mladé Boleslavi (759350); Ujkovice (774103); Vinec (782327); Žerčice (796468); Židněves (796786);
  Bakov nad Jizerou (600831) – východní část katastru Bakov nad Jizerou na západě ohraničená dálnicí D10. | 8.2.2023 |
| Dolánky (628239); Ctiměřice (618055); Bojetice (606928); Dobrovice (627470); Holé Vrchy (640905); Týnec u Dobrovice (772267); Úherce (772780); Kolomuty (668541); Semčice (747165); Vinařice u Dobrovice (782297). | 31.1.2023 – 8.2.2023 |
| Moravian-Silesian Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 | Bordovice (607444); Čeladná (619116); Frýdlant nad Ostravicí (635171); Hájov (636771); Chlebovice (651150); Kopřivnice (669393); Měrkovice (671789); Lhotka u Frýdku-Místku (681407); Lichnov u Nového Jičína (683787); Drnholec nad Lubinou (687961); Větřkovice u Lubiny (687987); Metylovice (693545); Mniší (697664); Myslík (700606); Nová Ves u Frýdlantu nad Ostravicí (705705); Ostravice 1 (715671); Palkovice (717452); Pstruží (736465); Sklenov (748293); Rychaltice (748307); Štramberk (764116); Trojanovice (768499); Veřovice (780367); Vlčovice (783901); Ženklava (796409);
  Frenštát pod Radhoštěm (634719) – jihozápadní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří železniční trať ze směru Veřovice – Kunčice p. O. po železniční přejezd na silnici Nádražní, silnice Nádražní, silnice Bezručova a silnice Lomná. | 28.1.2023 |
| Kozlovice (671771); Kunčice pod Ondřejníkem (677094); Tichá na Moravě (766992);
  Frenštát pod Radhoštěm (634719) – severovýchodní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří železniční trať ze směru Veřovice – Kunčice p. O. po železniční přejezd na silnici Nádražní, silnice Nádražní, silnice Bezručova a silnice Lomná. | 20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00003 | Bruzovice (613398); Havířov-město (637556); Bludovice (637696); Prostřední Suchá (637742); Dolní Suchá (637777); Horní Suchá (644404); Horní Bludovice (642401); Prostřední Bludovice (642410); Kaňovice (663051); Karviná-Doly (664103); Lískovec u Frýdku-Místku (684899); Nová Bělá (704946); Oprechtice ve Slezsku (712035); Orlová (712361); Lazy u Orlové (712434); Poruba u Orlové (712493); Horní Lutyně (712531); Moravská Ostrava (713520); Přívoz (713767); Mariánské Hory (713830); Muglinov (714941); Nová Ves u Ostravy (713937); Zábřeh-Hulváky (713970); Vítkovice (714071); Zábřeh (714089); Kunčice nad Ostravicí (714224); Kunčičky (714241); Zábřeh nad Odrou (714305); Hrabová (714534); Hrabůvka (714585); Heřmanice (714691); Michálkovice (714747); Slezská Ostrava (714828); Hrušov (714917); Výškovice u Ostravy (715620); Paskov (718211); Rychvald (744441); Řepiště (745197); Sedliště ve Slezsku (746983); Pitrov (751928); Dolní Soběšovice (751944); Stará Bělá (753661); Václavovice u Frýdku-Místku (776033); Vrbice nad Odrou (785971); Záblatí u Bohumína (789216); Žabeň (794139); Žermanice (796514); Dubina u Ostravy (798894); Dolní Datyně (628905);
  Horní Datyně (642720) – jižní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Vratimovská a ul. Václavovická; Šumbark (637734) – východní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Školní, ul. Lidická, ul.Opletalova a ul. U Nádraží; Petřvald u Karviné (720488) – severovýchodní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Ostravská, ul. Závodní a ul. Šumbarská; Vratimov (785601) – jižní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Buničitá, ul. Frýdecká, ul. Datyňská a ul. Václavovická; Lučina (688371) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří silnice č.4737; Horní Těrlicko (766577) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří vodní nádrž Těrlicko a řeka Stonávka; Dolní Těrlicko (766607) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří vodní nádrž Těrlicko; Doubrava u Orlové (631167) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří silnice vedoucí od čísla popisného 608 přes Doubravský kopec k hasičské zbrojnici a dále ke křižovatce se silnicí č. 47215, silnice č. 47215 a silnice č. 47214. | 2.2.2023 |
| Bartovice (715085); Radvanice (715018); Šenov u Ostravy (762342);
  Horní Datyně (642720) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Vratimovská a ul. Václavovická; Petřvald u Karviné (720488) – jihozápadní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Ostravská, ul. Závodní a ul. Šumbarská; Šumbark (637734) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Školní, ul. Lidická, ul. Opletalova a ul. U Nádraží; Vratimov (785601) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Buničitá, ul. Frýdecká, ul. Datyňská a ul. Václavovická. | 25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023 |
| Zlín Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 | Rožnov pod Radhoštěm (742937) – severní část katastrálního území, která je na jihu vymezena zeměpisnou rovnoběžnou linií protínající křižovatku ulic Ostravská a Kročákov. | 28.1.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00005 | Bánov (600865); Biskupice u Luhačovic (604780); Bojkovice (606979); Bystřice pod Lopeníkem (617130); Částkov (618608); Dobrkovice (627275); Dolní Němčí (629839); Drslavice (632643); Havřice (638064); Hradčovice (646725); Hřivínův Újezd (649163); Kaňovice u Luhačovic (663034); Kelníky (664782); Kladná Žilín (664944); Komňa (668800); Lhotka u Hradčovic (646733); Ludkovice (688444); Luhačovice (688576); Maršov u Uherského Brodu (691950); Nedachlebice (702137); Nezdenice (704415); Nivnice (704679); Pašovice na Moravě (718254); Polichno (725463); Prakšice (732826); Přečkovice (734195); Rudice (743241); Suchá Loz (759031); Svárov u Uherského Hradiště (759911); Veletiny (777919); Velký Ořechov (779679); Vlčnov (783897); Záhorovice (789836);
  Uherský Brod (772984) – jižní část katastrálního území od silnice č. 50. | 3.2.2023 |
| Šumice u Uherského Brodu (764230); Těšov (766828); Újezdec u Luhačovic (774081);
  Uherský Brod (772984) – severní část katastrálního území od silnice č. 50. | 26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023 |
| Plzeň Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 | Bezděkov u Damnova (624705); Boněnov (693995); Březí u Tachova (618021); Ctiboř u Tachova (618039); Částkov u Tachova (618560); Čečkovice (607321); Černošín (620408); Damnov (624713); Dolní Jadruž (629201); Dolní Kramolín (652199); Dolní Plezom (716405); Dolní Víska (680281); Doly u Boru (607339); Horní Jadruž (652288); Horní Plezom (716413); Hostíčkov (694002); Chodová Planá (652211); Chodský Újezd (652296); Jemnice u Tisové (767204); Kořen (680311); Klíčov (667668); Křínov (721255); Kříženec (721263); Kumpolec (767212); Kurojedy (677604); Kyjov u Zadního Chodova (789577); Lažany u Černošína (620424); Lhota u Tachova (715964); Malý Rapotín (764922); Michalovy Hory (694011); Neblažov (652300); Nahý Újezdec (701246); Olbramov (709824); Oldřichov u Tachova (764949); Ostrov u Tachova (715972); Ošelín (716430); Otín u Plané (721271); Pavlovice nad Mží (718521); Pernolec (618586); Planá u Mariánských Lázní (721280); Stan u Lestkova (680338); Staré Sedliště (754668); Svahy (759856); Štokov (652318); Tachov (764914); Tisová u Tachova (767221); Trnová u Tachova (767239); Třebel (620467); Velká Ves u Damnova (624721); Velký Rapotín (618594); Vítkov u Tachova (764833); Vížka (759864); Vysoké Jamné (680354); Výškov u Chodové Plané (652237); Záhoří u Černošína (620475); Zliv nad Mží (759872). | 1.2.2023 |
| Brod nad Tichou (612651); Kočov (667676); Lom u Tachova (686603); Týnec u Plané (721298); Ústí nad Mží (667684); Vítovice u Pavlovic (718530); Vysoké Sedliště (721301). | 24.1.2023 – 1.2.2023 |
| Ústí nad Labem Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Benešov nad Ploučnicí (602451); Blankartice (638633); Brložec (627283); Česká Kamenice (621285); Dobrná (627291); Dolní Habartice (629049); Dolní Kamenice (621293); Fojtovice u Heřmanova (638641); Františkov nad Ploučnicí (634603); Heřmanov (638650); Horní Habartice (642916); Horní Kamenice (621315); Janská (657204); Kamenická Nová Víska (780600); Kerhartice (664791); Loučky u Verneřic (780103); Malá Veleň (690392); Markvartice u Děčína (691780); Merboltice (693111); Oldřichov nad Ploučnicí (634620); Ovesná (602469); Stará Oleška (649554); Valkeřice (776629); Verneřice (780146); Veselé (780618). | 3.2.2023 |
| Karlovka (778265); Malá Bukovina (690031); Malý Šachov (755214); Starý Šachov (755222); Velká Bukovina (778273). | 26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023 |
| Liberec Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Častolovice u České Lípy (621609); Dolní Libchava (621544); Dubice u České Lípy (621528); Manušice (691542); Horní Libchava (643319); Kamenický Šenov (662640); Prácheň (732770); Kozly u České Lípy (671819); Janovice u Kravař (657034); Rané (674192); Nový Oldřichov (707830); Okrouhlá u Nového Boru (709573); Dolní Prysk (734039); Horní Prysk (734047); Skalice u České Lípy (747904; Slunečná u České Lípy (750760); Jezvé (757306); Stráž u České Lípy (757314); Stružnice (757322); Stvolínecké Petrovice (758647); Volfartická Nová Ves (784893); Heřmanice u Žandova (638579); Valteřice u Žandova (776653); Velká Javorská (778397). | 3.2.2023 |
| Horní Police (643823); Mistrovice u Nového Oldřichova (707821); Volfartice (784907); Dolní Police (794473); Radeč u Horní Police (737445); Žandov u České Lípy (794481). | 26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00008 | Bradlecká Lhota (608998); Chlum pod Táborem (686735); Nová Ves nad Popelkou (705802); Ploužnice pod Táborem (686786); Syřenov (761851); Žďár u Kumburku (761877). | 12.2.2023 |
| Hradec Králové Region |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00004 | Bartoušov u Jičíněvsi (659631); Běchary (601462); Bílsko u Kopidlna (772658); Budčeves (615188); Butoves (771767); Červeněves (750913); Dolany u Chyjic (655422); Drahoraz (631809); Hlušice (639923); Hlušičky (639931); Hradíšťko (796484); Hrobičany (746312); Hubálov (771775); Cholenice (652334); Chomutice (652423); Chomutičky (652431); Chotělice (653021); Chyjice (655431); Janovice u Vinar (782157); Jičíněves (659649); Keteň (631817); Kopidlno (669296); Kostelec u Jičíněvsi (659657); Kovač (669016); Kozojídky u Vinar (782165); Křičov (750921); Labouň (678813); Liběšice (623474); Loučná Hora (750930); Milíčeves (749842); Mlýnec u Kopidlna (697371); Nečas (615196); Nemyčeves (703273); Nevratice (754765); Ohnišťany (709280); Pševes (631825); Sekeřice (797685); Skochovice (748331); Skřeněř (754927); Skřivany (748960); Slatiny (749851); Sloupno nad Cidlinou (750671); Smidarská Lhota (782173); Smidary (750948); Staré Místo (723754); Staré Smrkovice (754773); Starý Bydžov (754943); Stříbrnice v Čechách (757713); Třtěnice (771147); Tuř (771791); Údrnická Lhota (772674); Únětice (772682); Velešice (746339); Vesec u Jičína (778141); Veselská Lhota (788341); Vinary u Smidar (782181); Vitiněves (782912); Vlhošť (796492); Vrbice nad Cidlinou (785954); Vršce (786608); Vysoké Veselí (788350); Žeretice (796506); Židovice (796832); Žitětín (659665). | 3.2.2023 |
| Češov (623466); Kozojedy u Žlunic (797677); Sběř (746321); Slavhostice (797693); Volanice (784664); Žlunice (797707). | 26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023 |
| CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00008 | Brada (724521); Březina u Jičína (638871); Butoves (771767); Dílce (724530); Holín (641243); Prachov (641286); Chomutice (652423); Chomutičky (652431); Obora u Chomutic (652440); Choteč u Lázní Bělohradu (697214); Jičín (659541); Moravčice (740217); Popovice u Jičína (725838); Jičíněves (659649); Jinolice (724564); Kbelnice u Jičína (724572); Kamenice u Konecchlumí (668991); Konecchlumí (669008); Kostelec u Jičíněvsi (659657); Kovač (669016); Kyje u Jičína (678406); Horní Nová Ves (679305); Hřídelec (679313); Lány u Lázní Bělohradu (679321); Lázně Bělohrad (679330); Prostřední Nová Ves (679348); Uhlíře (601861); Mlázovice (697249); Nemyčeves (703273); Nevratice (754765); Heřmanice u Nové Paky (758329); Kumburský Újezd (758337); Nová Paka (705128); Přibyslav u Nové Paky (776548); Pustá Proseč (776556); Radkyně (601853); Studénka u Nové Paky (758345); Štikov (763764); Valdov (776564); Ohaveč (641260); Ostroměř (715727); Podhorní Újezd (723665); Vojice (723673); Čejkovice u Jičína (723738); Hlásná Lhota u Jičína (638889); Podhradí u Jičína (723746); Podůlší (724556); Lháň (737810); Tužín (737844); Milíčeves (749842); Slatiny (749851); Sobčice (751499); Soběraz (751685); Brdo (609790); Krsmol (609803); Roškopov (741469); Stará Paka (753823); Ústí u Staré Paky (741477); Staré Místo (723754); Svatojanský Újezd (697257); Šárovcova Lhota (697265); Třtěnice (771147); Hubálov (771775); Tuř (771791); Česká Proseč (772461); Stav (772496); Úbislavice (772518); Zboží u Nové Paky (772526); Valdice (776530); Veliš u Jičína (778133); Vesec u Jičína (778141); Vitiněves (782912); Stříbrnice v Čechách (757713); Vrbice nad Cidlinou (785954); Veselská Lhota (788341); Cidlina (617709); Těšín (751693); Zámezí (617725); Železnice (796123); Hradíšťko (796484); Vlhošť (796492); Žeretice (796506). | 12.2.2023 |
| Dřevěnice (737801); Robousy (740225); Kacákova Lhota (771783); Lužany u Jičína (689238); Radim u Jičína (737828); Studeňany (737836); Řeheč (774154); Úlibice (774162). | 4.2.2023 – 12.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

South Bohemian Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

Bělčice (601870); Hostišovice (645796); Podruhlí (645818); Závišín u Bělčic (791288); Bezdědovice (603457); Blatná (605247); Drahenický Málkov (631558); Hněvkov u Mačkova (689726); Skaličany (748005); Buzice (616401); Cerhonice (617571); Čimelice (623822); Krsice (623831); Hornosín (644765); Horosedly (644781); Chlum u Blatné (651494); Chobot (775754); Králova Lhota (672581); Laziště (672599); Lety (680770); Lom u Blatné (86549); Míreč (686557); Bořice u Mirotic (756822); Jarotice (756831); Mirotice (695505); Radobytce (617601); Stráž u Mirotic (756849); Strážovice u Mirotic (756857); Boješice (606898); Kakovice (696170); Mirovice (695726); Ohař (606901); Plíškovice (721875); Ráztely (721883); Touškov (767883); Myslín (700631); Vahlovice (700894); Dolní Nerestce (703699); Horní Nerestce (703702); Mužetice (700509); Němčice u Sedlice (746886); Smetanova Lhota (750867); Pacelice (762750); Škvořetice (762768);

Uzenice (775771) – západní část katastrálního území, přičemž hranici na východě tvoří silnice č. 1735 vedoucí od severní hranice katastrálního území k jižní hranici katastrálního území.

4.2.2023

Boudy (695483); Minice u Mišovic (696188); Lučkovice (695491); Mišovice (696196); Pohoří u Mirovic (696200); Svučice (761621); Kožlí u Myštic (700835); Myštice (700851); Výšice (700908); Rakovice (623849); Uzeničky (775789);

Uzenice (775771) – východní část katastrálního území, přičemž hranici na západě tvoří silnice č. 1735 vedoucí od severní hranice katastrálního území k jižní hranici katastrálního území.

27.1.2023 – 4.2.2023

Central Bohemian Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Břekova Lhota (633569); Dublovice (633577); Chramosty (653667); Líchovy (683825); Zvírotice (793990); Velké Heřmanice (778796); Bolechovice II (798479); Dobrošovice (658626); Jesenice u Sedlčan (658651); Mezné (788180); Kňovice (667153); Plešiště (673536); Hořetice (645133); Krchleby (674427); Křečovice u Neveklova (675547); Nahoruby (701131); Vlkonice u Neveklova (789631); Živohošť (701157); Křepenice (675938); Strnadice (762105); Nalžovice (701491); Nalžovické Podhájí (701505); Kamenice u Nedrahovic (702242); Nedrahovice (702251); Nedrahovické Podhájí (702269); Radeč u Nedrahovic (702277); Bratřejov (702536); Křemenice (702552); Libčice u Nechvalic (702561); Nechvalice (702587); Ředice (744913); Osečany (712701); Velběhy (712728); Počepice (723151); Rovina (742091); Skuhrov u Počepic (723169); Vitín u Počepic (723177); Luhy u Prosenické Lhoty (733326); Prosenická Lhota (733342); Suchdol u Prosenické Lhoty (733351); Příčovy (735833); Radíč (737674); Oříkov (646571); Solopysky u Třebnic (770043); Třebnice (770116); Bolechovice I (626279); Divišovice (626287); Kvasejovice (678104); Měšetice (678139); Nové Dvory u Kvasejovic (678155); Skrýšov u Svatého Jana (760188); Štětkovice (763730); Bezmíř (784435); Minartice (784451); Vojkov u Votic (784486); Martinice u Votic (692051); Šebáňovice (762113); Vrchotovy Janovice (786489); Hrabří (646563); Pořešice (725927); Vápenice u Vysokého Chlumce (788406); Vysoký Chlumec (788414);

Vysoká u Kosovy Hory (788198) – vyjma části obce Dohnalova Lhota; Zderadice (792331) – vyjma části obce Zderadice.

2.2.2023

Janov u Kosovy Hory (670006); Kosova Hora (670014); Bor u Sedlčan (702234); Doubravice u Sedlčan (682802); Libíň (682811); Sedlčany (746533); Sestrouň (746568);

Vysoká u Kosovy Hory (788198) – část obce Dohnalova Lhota.

25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

Dubečno (666912); Dvořiště (712868); Chroustov (654248); Kamilov (750689); Kněžice u Městce Králové (666921); Malá Strana u Chotěšic (653080); Nouzov u Dymokur (704920); Nová Ves u Chotěšic (653098); Osek (712876); Sloveč (750697); Střihov (750701); Záhornice u Městce Králové (789828).

3.2.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

Bor u Březnice (607240); Březnice (614271); Bubovice u Březnice (784800); Drahenice (631540); Hudčice (649236); Koupě (671207); Martinice u Březnice (692085); Nestrašovice (761320); Počaply u Březnice (722952); Stražiště (722961); Zalužany (790761).

4.2.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00007

Chudoplesy (654809); Bradlec (608980); Brodce nad Jizerou (612685); Březno u Mladé Boleslavi (614467); Struhy (757098); Dalovice u Mladé Boleslavi (624578); Dlouhá Lhota u Mladé Boleslavi (626384); Chloumek u Mladé Boleslavi (651371); Libichov (682799); Sýčina (761630); Bechov (601501); Dolní Stakory (630195); Domousnice (631001); Skyšice (745821); Hrušov nad Jizerou (648736); Husí Lhota (649660); Charvatce u Jabkenic (650641); Chudíř (654795); Jabkenice (655864); Jizerní Vtelno (661457); Lítkovice u Kněžmostu (708771); Násedlnice (669369); Úhelnice (772771); Kobylnice (667463); Horní Stakory (644137); Kosmonosy (669857); Kosořice (669989); Krnsko (674788); Řehnice (674818); Ledce u Mladé Boleslavi (679623); Lhotky u Mladé Boleslavi (681466); Loučeň (686930); Luštěnice (689106); Voděrady u Luštěnic (689114); Mcely (692344); Bezděčín u Mladé Boleslavi (696579; Čejetice u Mladé Boleslavi (696641); Debř (696692); Chrást u Mladé Boleslavi (696587); Jemníky u Mladé Boleslavi (696455); Mladá Boleslav (696293); Podlázky (900125); Němčice u Luštěnic (702943); Nepřevázka (703559); Nová Telib (705276); Obrubce (708798); Pěčice (718742); Petkovy (719609); Písková Lhota (720968); Plazy (721590); Prodašice (733121); Rabakov (737089); Řepov (745286); Řitonice (745812); Seletice (670855); Bratronice u Luštěnic (609625); Rejšice (740055); Smilovice u Luštěnic (751014); Újezd u Luštěnic (773581); Újezdec u Luštěnic (773590); Strašnov (756300); Sukorady u Mladé Boleslavi (759350); Ujkovice (774103); Vinec (782327); Žerčice (796468); Židněves (796786);

Bakov nad Jizerou (600831) – východní část katastru Bakov nad Jizerou na západě ohraničená dálnicí D10.

8.2.2023

Dolánky (628239); Ctiměřice (618055); Bojetice (606928); Dobrovice (627470); Holé Vrchy (640905); Týnec u Dobrovice (772267); Úherce (772780); Kolomuty (668541); Semčice (747165); Vinařice u Dobrovice (782297).

31.1.2023 – 8.2.2023

Moravian-Silesian Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00018

Bordovice (607444); Čeladná (619116); Frýdlant nad Ostravicí (635171); Hájov (636771); Chlebovice (651150); Kopřivnice (669393); Měrkovice (671789); Lhotka u Frýdku-Místku (681407); Lichnov u Nového Jičína (683787); Drnholec nad Lubinou (687961); Větřkovice u Lubiny (687987); Metylovice (693545); Mniší (697664); Myslík (700606); Nová Ves u Frýdlantu nad Ostravicí (705705); Ostravice 1 (715671); Palkovice (717452); Pstruží (736465); Sklenov (748293); Rychaltice (748307); Štramberk (764116); Trojanovice (768499); Veřovice (780367); Vlčovice (783901); Ženklava (796409);

Frenštát pod Radhoštěm (634719) – jihozápadní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří železniční trať ze směru Veřovice – Kunčice p. O. po železniční přejezd na silnici Nádražní, silnice Nádražní, silnice Bezručova a silnice Lomná.

28.1.2023

Kozlovice (671771); Kunčice pod Ondřejníkem (677094); Tichá na Moravě (766992);

Frenštát pod Radhoštěm (634719) – severovýchodní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří železniční trať ze směru Veřovice – Kunčice p. O. po železniční přejezd na silnici Nádražní, silnice Nádražní, silnice Bezručova a silnice Lomná.

20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

Bruzovice (613398); Havířov-město (637556); Bludovice (637696); Prostřední Suchá (637742); Dolní Suchá (637777); Horní Suchá (644404); Horní Bludovice (642401); Prostřední Bludovice (642410); Kaňovice (663051); Karviná-Doly (664103); Lískovec u Frýdku-Místku (684899); Nová Bělá (704946); Oprechtice ve Slezsku (712035); Orlová (712361); Lazy u Orlové (712434); Poruba u Orlové (712493); Horní Lutyně (712531); Moravská Ostrava (713520); Přívoz (713767); Mariánské Hory (713830); Muglinov (714941); Nová Ves u Ostravy (713937); Zábřeh-Hulváky (713970); Vítkovice (714071); Zábřeh (714089); Kunčice nad Ostravicí (714224); Kunčičky (714241); Zábřeh nad Odrou (714305); Hrabová (714534); Hrabůvka (714585); Heřmanice (714691); Michálkovice (714747); Slezská Ostrava (714828); Hrušov (714917); Výškovice u Ostravy (715620); Paskov (718211); Rychvald (744441); Řepiště (745197); Sedliště ve Slezsku (746983); Pitrov (751928); Dolní Soběšovice (751944); Stará Bělá (753661); Václavovice u Frýdku-Místku (776033); Vrbice nad Odrou (785971); Záblatí u Bohumína (789216); Žabeň (794139); Žermanice (796514); Dubina u Ostravy (798894); Dolní Datyně (628905);

Horní Datyně (642720) – jižní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Vratimovská a ul. Václavovická; Šumbark (637734) – východní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Školní, ul. Lidická, ul.Opletalova a ul. U Nádraží; Petřvald u Karviné (720488) – severovýchodní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Ostravská, ul. Závodní a ul. Šumbarská; Vratimov (785601) – jižní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Buničitá, ul. Frýdecká, ul. Datyňská a ul. Václavovická; Lučina (688371) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří silnice č.4737; Horní Těrlicko (766577) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří vodní nádrž Těrlicko a řeka Stonávka; Dolní Těrlicko (766607) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří vodní nádrž Těrlicko; Doubrava u Orlové (631167) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří silnice vedoucí od čísla popisného 608 přes Doubravský kopec k hasičské zbrojnici a dále ke křižovatce se silnicí č. 47215, silnice č. 47215 a silnice č. 47214.

2.2.2023

Bartovice (715085); Radvanice (715018); Šenov u Ostravy (762342);

Horní Datyně (642720) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Vratimovská a ul. Václavovická; Petřvald u Karviné (720488) – jihozápadní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Ostravská, ul. Závodní a ul. Šumbarská; Šumbark (637734) – západní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Školní, ul. Lidická, ul. Opletalova a ul. U Nádraží; Vratimov (785601) – severní část katastrálního území, kdy hranici tvoří ul. Buničitá, ul. Frýdecká, ul. Datyňská a ul. Václavovická.

25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023

Zlín Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00018

Rožnov pod Radhoštěm (742937) – severní část katastrálního území, která je na jihu vymezena zeměpisnou rovnoběžnou linií protínající křižovatku ulic Ostravská a Kročákov.

28.1.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00005

Bánov (600865); Biskupice u Luhačovic (604780); Bojkovice (606979); Bystřice pod Lopeníkem (617130); Částkov (618608); Dobrkovice (627275); Dolní Němčí (629839); Drslavice (632643); Havřice (638064); Hradčovice (646725); Hřivínův Újezd (649163); Kaňovice u Luhačovic (663034); Kelníky (664782); Kladná Žilín (664944); Komňa (668800); Lhotka u Hradčovic (646733); Ludkovice (688444); Luhačovice (688576); Maršov u Uherského Brodu (691950); Nedachlebice (702137); Nezdenice (704415); Nivnice (704679); Pašovice na Moravě (718254); Polichno (725463); Prakšice (732826); Přečkovice (734195); Rudice (743241); Suchá Loz (759031); Svárov u Uherského Hradiště (759911); Veletiny (777919); Velký Ořechov (779679); Vlčnov (783897); Záhorovice (789836);

Uherský Brod (772984) – jižní část katastrálního území od silnice č. 50.

3.2.2023

Šumice u Uherského Brodu (764230); Těšov (766828); Újezdec u Luhačovic (774081);

Uherský Brod (772984) – severní část katastrálního území od silnice č. 50.

26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023

Plzeň Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2022-00019

Bezděkov u Damnova (624705); Boněnov (693995); Březí u Tachova (618021); Ctiboř u Tachova (618039); Částkov u Tachova (618560); Čečkovice (607321); Černošín (620408); Damnov (624713); Dolní Jadruž (629201); Dolní Kramolín (652199); Dolní Plezom (716405); Dolní Víska (680281); Doly u Boru (607339); Horní Jadruž (652288); Horní Plezom (716413); Hostíčkov (694002); Chodová Planá (652211); Chodský Újezd (652296); Jemnice u Tisové (767204); Kořen (680311); Klíčov (667668); Křínov (721255); Kříženec (721263); Kumpolec (767212); Kurojedy (677604); Kyjov u Zadního Chodova (789577); Lažany u Černošína (620424); Lhota u Tachova (715964); Malý Rapotín (764922); Michalovy Hory (694011); Neblažov (652300); Nahý Újezdec (701246); Olbramov (709824); Oldřichov u Tachova (764949); Ostrov u Tachova (715972); Ošelín (716430); Otín u Plané (721271); Pavlovice nad Mží (718521); Pernolec (618586); Planá u Mariánských Lázní (721280); Stan u Lestkova (680338); Staré Sedliště (754668); Svahy (759856); Štokov (652318); Tachov (764914); Tisová u Tachova (767221); Trnová u Tachova (767239); Třebel (620467); Velká Ves u Damnova (624721); Velký Rapotín (618594); Vítkov u Tachova (764833); Vížka (759864); Vysoké Jamné (680354); Výškov u Chodové Plané (652237); Záhoří u Černošína (620475); Zliv nad Mží (759872).

1.2.2023

Brod nad Tichou (612651); Kočov (667676); Lom u Tachova (686603); Týnec u Plané (721298); Ústí nad Mží (667684); Vítovice u Pavlovic (718530); Vysoké Sedliště (721301).

24.1.2023 – 1.2.2023

Ústí nad Labem Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Benešov nad Ploučnicí (602451); Blankartice (638633); Brložec (627283); Česká Kamenice (621285); Dobrná (627291); Dolní Habartice (629049); Dolní Kamenice (621293); Fojtovice u Heřmanova (638641); Františkov nad Ploučnicí (634603); Heřmanov (638650); Horní Habartice (642916); Horní Kamenice (621315); Janská (657204); Kamenická Nová Víska (780600); Kerhartice (664791); Loučky u Verneřic (780103); Malá Veleň (690392); Markvartice u Děčína (691780); Merboltice (693111); Oldřichov nad Ploučnicí (634620); Ovesná (602469); Stará Oleška (649554); Valkeřice (776629); Verneřice (780146); Veselé (780618).

3.2.2023

Karlovka (778265); Malá Bukovina (690031); Malý Šachov (755214); Starý Šachov (755222); Velká Bukovina (778273).

26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023

Liberec Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Častolovice u České Lípy (621609); Dolní Libchava (621544); Dubice u České Lípy (621528); Manušice (691542); Horní Libchava (643319); Kamenický Šenov (662640); Prácheň (732770); Kozly u České Lípy (671819); Janovice u Kravař (657034); Rané (674192); Nový Oldřichov (707830); Okrouhlá u Nového Boru (709573); Dolní Prysk (734039); Horní Prysk (734047); Skalice u České Lípy (747904; Slunečná u České Lípy (750760); Jezvé (757306); Stráž u České Lípy (757314); Stružnice (757322); Stvolínecké Petrovice (758647); Volfartická Nová Ves (784893); Heřmanice u Žandova (638579); Valteřice u Žandova (776653); Velká Javorská (778397).

3.2.2023

Horní Police (643823); Mistrovice u Nového Oldřichova (707821); Volfartice (784907); Dolní Police (794473); Radeč u Horní Police (737445); Žandov u České Lípy (794481).

26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

Bradlecká Lhota (608998); Chlum pod Táborem (686735); Nová Ves nad Popelkou (705802); Ploužnice pod Táborem (686786); Syřenov (761851); Žďár u Kumburku (761877).

12.2.2023

Hradec Králové Region

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

Bartoušov u Jičíněvsi (659631); Běchary (601462); Bílsko u Kopidlna (772658); Budčeves (615188); Butoves (771767); Červeněves (750913); Dolany u Chyjic (655422); Drahoraz (631809); Hlušice (639923); Hlušičky (639931); Hradíšťko (796484); Hrobičany (746312); Hubálov (771775); Cholenice (652334); Chomutice (652423); Chomutičky (652431); Chotělice (653021); Chyjice (655431); Janovice u Vinar (782157); Jičíněves (659649); Keteň (631817); Kopidlno (669296); Kostelec u Jičíněvsi (659657); Kovač (669016); Kozojídky u Vinar (782165); Křičov (750921); Labouň (678813); Liběšice (623474); Loučná Hora (750930); Milíčeves (749842); Mlýnec u Kopidlna (697371); Nečas (615196); Nemyčeves (703273); Nevratice (754765); Ohnišťany (709280); Pševes (631825); Sekeřice (797685); Skochovice (748331); Skřeněř (754927); Skřivany (748960); Slatiny (749851); Sloupno nad Cidlinou (750671); Smidarská Lhota (782173); Smidary (750948); Staré Místo (723754); Staré Smrkovice (754773); Starý Bydžov (754943); Stříbrnice v Čechách (757713); Třtěnice (771147); Tuř (771791); Údrnická Lhota (772674); Únětice (772682); Velešice (746339); Vesec u Jičína (778141); Veselská Lhota (788341); Vinary u Smidar (782181); Vitiněves (782912); Vlhošť (796492); Vrbice nad Cidlinou (785954); Vršce (786608); Vysoké Veselí (788350); Žeretice (796506); Židovice (796832); Žitětín (659665).

3.2.2023

Češov (623466); Kozojedy u Žlunic (797677); Sběř (746321); Slavhostice (797693); Volanice (784664); Žlunice (797707).

26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023

CZ-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

Brada (724521); Březina u Jičína (638871); Butoves (771767); Dílce (724530); Holín (641243); Prachov (641286); Chomutice (652423); Chomutičky (652431); Obora u Chomutic (652440); Choteč u Lázní Bělohradu (697214); Jičín (659541); Moravčice (740217); Popovice u Jičína (725838); Jičíněves (659649); Jinolice (724564); Kbelnice u Jičína (724572); Kamenice u Konecchlumí (668991); Konecchlumí (669008); Kostelec u Jičíněvsi (659657); Kovač (669016); Kyje u Jičína (678406); Horní Nová Ves (679305); Hřídelec (679313); Lány u Lázní Bělohradu (679321); Lázně Bělohrad (679330); Prostřední Nová Ves (679348); Uhlíře (601861); Mlázovice (697249); Nemyčeves (703273); Nevratice (754765); Heřmanice u Nové Paky (758329); Kumburský Újezd (758337); Nová Paka (705128); Přibyslav u Nové Paky (776548); Pustá Proseč (776556); Radkyně (601853); Studénka u Nové Paky (758345); Štikov (763764); Valdov (776564); Ohaveč (641260); Ostroměř (715727); Podhorní Újezd (723665); Vojice (723673); Čejkovice u Jičína (723738); Hlásná Lhota u Jičína (638889); Podhradí u Jičína (723746); Podůlší (724556); Lháň (737810); Tužín (737844); Milíčeves (749842); Slatiny (749851); Sobčice (751499); Soběraz (751685); Brdo (609790); Krsmol (609803); Roškopov (741469); Stará Paka (753823); Ústí u Staré Paky (741477); Staré Místo (723754); Svatojanský Újezd (697257); Šárovcova Lhota (697265); Třtěnice (771147); Hubálov (771775); Tuř (771791); Česká Proseč (772461); Stav (772496); Úbislavice (772518); Zboží u Nové Paky (772526); Valdice (776530); Veliš u Jičína (778133); Vesec u Jičína (778141); Vitiněves (782912); Stříbrnice v Čechách (757713); Vrbice nad Cidlinou (785954); Veselská Lhota (788341); Cidlina (617709); Těšín (751693); Zámezí (617725); Železnice (796123); Hradíšťko (796484); Vlhošť (796492); Žeretice (796506).

12.2.2023

Dřevěnice (737801); Robousy (740225); Kacákova Lhota (771783); Lužany u Jičína (689238); Radim u Jičína (737828); Studeňany (737836); Řeheč (774154); Úlibice (774162).

4.2.2023 – 12.2.2023

Member State: Denmark

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00007 | The parts of Lolland municipality beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of radius 10 kilometres, centred on GPS koordinates coordinates N N 54,8728; E 11,3967 | 26.1.2023 |
| The parts of Lolland municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates N N 54,8728; E 11,3967 | 18.1.2023 – 26.1.2023 |
| DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00008 | The parts of Hedensted, Horsens and Vejle municipality beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of radius 10 kilometres, centred on GPS koordinates coordinates N 55.7343; E 9.7477 | 5.2.2023 |
| The parts of Hedensted municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates N 55.7343; E 9.7477 | 28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00007

The parts of Lolland municipality beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of radius 10 kilometres, centred on GPS koordinates coordinates N N 54,8728; E 11,3967

26.1.2023

The parts of Lolland municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates N N 54,8728; E 11,3967

18.1.2023 – 26.1.2023

DK-HPAI(P)-2022-00008

The parts of Hedensted, Horsens and Vejle municipality beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of radius 10 kilometres, centred on GPS koordinates coordinates N 55.7343; E 9.7477

5.2.2023

The parts of Hedensted municipality that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates N 55.7343; E 9.7477

28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023

Member State: Germany

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| BAYERN |
| DE-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00017 | Landkreis Tirschenreuth

  An der Staatsgrenze zur Tschechischen Republik der ST 2175 nach Osten Richtung Mähring durch Bad Neualbenreuth folgend und bei Ernestgrün entlang der ST 2174 nach Süden bis Wondreb. Entlang des Flusses Wondreb nach Norden zur Gemeindegrenze Leonberg. Ab hier den südlichen Gemeindegrenzen Leonberg, Mitterteich und Pechbrunn bis zur Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel folgend. | 4.2.2023 |
| Landkreis Tirschenreuth

  An der Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel der ST 2178 nach Osten Richtung Waldsassen folgend, an Münchenreuth vorbei nach Schottenhof. Weiter entlang der Straße TIR 20 bis zum südlichen Ende von Hundsbach, entlang der Wondreb bis zum Skilift, dem östlichen Waldrand bis zum Sammelhof folgend. Weiter Richtung Süden entlang dem Feldweg bis zur ST 2175 und dieser Richtung Osten nach Bad Neualbenreuth bis zur Kreuzung Hatzenreuth/Pfudermühle folgend. Richtung Süden an der Pfudermühle vorbei, der Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen bis zum Egnermühlbach folgend, an diesem entlang bis zum Socksteich. Über den Feldweg zur Straße TIR 25 bei Pfaffenreuth, dieser Richtung Waldsassen zur Straße TIR 22 folgend. Entlang der TIR 22 nach Süden, an Pfaffenreuth vorbei bis zur Hohe Straße. Dieser folgend Richtung Königshütte und über Altenhammer nach Forkatshof. Dem Feldweg zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen folgend, dann entlang der Gemeindegrenze bis zur B 299. Entlang der B 299 Richtung Süden nach Mitterteich und bei Neupleußen der Straße TIR 3 nach Fockenfeld folgend. Weiter entlang der TIR 15 nach Norden Richtung Neudorf, vor Neudorf dem Feldweg zur ST 2175 folgend, weiter Richtung Waldsassen bis zur Abzweigung nach Wolfsbühl, an Wolfsbühl vorbei zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen und dieser nach Norden zur Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel bis zur ST 2178 folgend. | 27.1.2023 – 4.2.2023 |
| Landkreis Wunsiedel i. Fichtelgebirge | Stadt Arzberg | Stadt Arzberg |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

BAYERN

DE-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00017

Landkreis Tirschenreuth

An der Staatsgrenze zur Tschechischen Republik der ST 2175 nach Osten Richtung Mähring durch Bad Neualbenreuth folgend und bei Ernestgrün entlang der ST 2174 nach Süden bis Wondreb. Entlang des Flusses Wondreb nach Norden zur Gemeindegrenze Leonberg. Ab hier den südlichen Gemeindegrenzen Leonberg, Mitterteich und Pechbrunn bis zur Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel folgend.

4.2.2023

Landkreis Tirschenreuth

An der Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel der ST 2178 nach Osten Richtung Waldsassen folgend, an Münchenreuth vorbei nach Schottenhof. Weiter entlang der Straße TIR 20 bis zum südlichen Ende von Hundsbach, entlang der Wondreb bis zum Skilift, dem östlichen Waldrand bis zum Sammelhof folgend. Weiter Richtung Süden entlang dem Feldweg bis zur ST 2175 und dieser Richtung Osten nach Bad Neualbenreuth bis zur Kreuzung Hatzenreuth/Pfudermühle folgend. Richtung Süden an der Pfudermühle vorbei, der Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen bis zum Egnermühlbach folgend, an diesem entlang bis zum Socksteich. Über den Feldweg zur Straße TIR 25 bei Pfaffenreuth, dieser Richtung Waldsassen zur Straße TIR 22 folgend. Entlang der TIR 22 nach Süden, an Pfaffenreuth vorbei bis zur Hohe Straße. Dieser folgend Richtung Königshütte und über Altenhammer nach Forkatshof. Dem Feldweg zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen folgend, dann entlang der Gemeindegrenze bis zur B 299. Entlang der B 299 Richtung Süden nach Mitterteich und bei Neupleußen der Straße TIR 3 nach Fockenfeld folgend. Weiter entlang der TIR 15 nach Norden Richtung Neudorf, vor Neudorf dem Feldweg zur ST 2175 folgend, weiter Richtung Waldsassen bis zur Abzweigung nach Wolfsbühl, an Wolfsbühl vorbei zur Gemeindegrenze Waldsassen und dieser nach Norden zur Landkreisgrenze zu Wunsiedel bis zur ST 2178 folgend.

27.1.2023 – 4.2.2023

Landkreis Wunsiedel i. Fichtelgebirge

Stadt Arzberg

Stadt Arzberg

| | Elisenfels |
| --- | --- |

Elisenfels

| | Elmberg |
| --- | --- |

Elmberg

| | Forellenmühle (bei Arzberg) |
| --- | --- |

Forellenmühle (bei Arzberg)

| | Hagenhaus |
| --- | --- |

Hagenhaus

| | Haid |
| --- | --- |

Haid

| | Heiligenfurt |
| --- | --- |

Heiligenfurt

| | Kieselmühle bei Arzberg |
| --- | --- |

Kieselmühle bei Arzberg

| | Klausen (bei Seußen) |
| --- | --- |

Klausen (bei Seußen)

| | Oschwitz |
| --- | --- |

Oschwitz

| | Preisdorf |
| --- | --- |

Preisdorf

| | Schlottenhof |
| --- | --- |

Schlottenhof

| | Seußen (nur Hauptstr. Hsnr. 036 bis 46, Niebitz und Am Altenberg) |
| --- | --- |

Seußen (nur Hauptstr. Hsnr. 036 bis 46, Niebitz und Am Altenberg)

| | Steinau bei Konnersreuth |
| --- | --- |

Steinau bei Konnersreuth

| | Theresienfeld |
| --- | --- |

Theresienfeld

| | Trögerhäuser |
| --- | --- |

Trögerhäuser

| | Trompetenberg |
| --- | --- |

Trompetenberg

| | Waldenfelswarte (At) |
| --- | --- |

Waldenfelswarte (At)

| | Stadt Marktredwitz | Fridau |
| --- | --- | --- |

Stadt Marktredwitz

Fridau

| | Glashütte (bei Brand) |
| --- | --- |

Glashütte (bei Brand)

| | Katharinenhöhe (bei Marktredwitz) |
| --- | --- |

Katharinenhöhe (bei Marktredwitz)

| | Gemeinde Schirnding | Markt Schirnding |
| --- | --- | --- |

Gemeinde Schirnding

Markt Schirnding

| | Raithenbach |
| --- | --- |

Raithenbach

| | Seedorf (bei Münchenreuth) |
| --- | --- |

Seedorf (bei Münchenreuth)

4.2.2023

BREMEN

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00102

Stadtgemeinde Bremerhaven

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb GPS-Koordinaten 8.656393/53.671901

Betroffen sind Leherheide-West, Königsheide, Fehrmoor inklusive der Enklave Fehrmoor

30.1.2023

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00100

Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS Koordinaten 11.122477, 53.771366. Betroffen sind folgende Gemeinden mit den Orten und Ortsteilen:

| — | Gemeinde Stepenitztal: Börzow, Bonnhagen, Volkenhagen und Teschow |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Stepenitztal: Börzow, Bonnhagen, Volkenhagen und Teschow

| — | Gemeinde Grieben: Grieben und Zehmen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Grieben: Grieben und Zehmen

| — | Gemeinde Roduchelstorf: Roduchelstorf und Cordshagen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Roduchelstorf: Roduchelstorf und Cordshagen

| — | Gemeinde Rehna: Falkenhagen, Löwitz, Rehna, Gletzow, Vitense, Neu Vitense, Törber, Törberhals, Parber, Nesow und Dorf Nesow |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Rehna: Falkenhagen, Löwitz, Rehna, Gletzow, Vitense, Neu Vitense, Törber, Törberhals, Parber, Nesow und Dorf Nesow

| — | Gemeinde Königsfeld: Bülow, Klein Rünz, Groß Rünz, Warnekow, Bestenrade und Demern |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Königsfeld: Bülow, Klein Rünz, Groß Rünz, Warnekow, Bestenrade und Demern

| — | Gemeinde Roggendorf: Breesen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Roggendorf: Breesen

| — | Gemeinde Holdorf: Holdorf und Meetzen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Holdorf: Holdorf und Meetzen

| — | Gemeinde Gadebusch: Ganzow, Dorf Ganzow, Neu Bauhof, Gadebusch, Reinhardtsdorf, Güstow, Buchholz, Klein Hundorf und Möllin |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Gadebusch: Ganzow, Dorf Ganzow, Neu Bauhof, Gadebusch, Reinhardtsdorf, Güstow, Buchholz, Klein Hundorf und Möllin

| — | Gemeinde Lützow: Bendhof |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Lützow: Bendhof

| — | Gemeinde Dragun: Dragun, Neu Dragun und Vietlübbe |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Dragun: Dragun, Neu Dragun und Vietlübbe

| — | Gemeinde Mühlen Eichsen: Mühlen Eichsen, Goddin, Webelsfelde und Groß Eichsen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Mühlen Eichsen: Mühlen Eichsen, Goddin, Webelsfelde und Groß Eichsen

| — | Gemeinde Testorf-Steinfort: Testorf-Steinfort, Testorf, Wüstenmark und Seefeld |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Testorf-Steinfort: Testorf-Steinfort, Testorf, Wüstenmark und Seefeld

| — | Gemeinde Upahl: Upahl, Kastahn, Boienhagen, Groß Pravtshagen, Sievershagen und Hanshagen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Upahl: Upahl, Kastahn, Boienhagen, Groß Pravtshagen, Sievershagen und Hanshagen

| — | Gemeinde Grevesmühlen: Grevesmühlen Süd ab Bahnschienen Rehnaer Straße/Heinrich-Heine-Straße/Jahnstraße bis Ortsschild Wotenitz, Poischow, Wotenitz, Büttlingen und Questin |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Grevesmühlen: Grevesmühlen Süd ab Bahnschienen Rehnaer Straße/Heinrich-Heine-Straße/Jahnstraße bis Ortsschild Wotenitz, Poischow, Wotenitz, Büttlingen und Questin

| — | Gemeinde Menzendorf: Lübsee |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Menzendorf: Lübsee

| — | Gemeinde Wedendorfersee: Benzin |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Wedendorfersee: Benzin

| — | Gemeinde Veelböken: Frauenmark, Passow, Paetrow, Veelböken, Rambeel und Hindenberg |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Veelböken: Frauenmark, Passow, Paetrow, Veelböken, Rambeel und Hindenberg

| — | Gemeinde Rüting: Rüting, Diedrichshagen und Schildberg |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Rüting: Rüting, Diedrichshagen und Schildberg

| — | Gemeinde Bernstorf: Bernstorf, Bernstorf-Ausbau, Jeese, Strohkirchen, Pieverstorf, Wilkenhagen und Wölschendorf |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Bernstorf: Bernstorf, Bernstorf-Ausbau, Jeese, Strohkirchen, Pieverstorf, Wilkenhagen und Wölschendorf

19.1.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Landkreis Vorpommern-Greifswald

10 km Radius um den im Landkreis Vorpommern-Rügen liegenden Ausbruchsbetrieb mit den GPS-Koordinaten 13.147556/54.072837 die tangierten Orte und Ortsteile in den betroffenen Gemeinden in Gänze.

9.2.2023

Landkreis Vorpommern- Rügen

Gemeinde Süderholz, die Ortsteile: Behnkenhagen, Kandelin, Klein Bisdorf, Klein Zarnewanz, Lüssow, Neuendorf, Poggendorf, Wüsteney

31.1.2023 – 9.2.2023

Landkreis Vorpommern-Rügen

Gemeinde Süderholz, die Ortsteile: Barkow, Bartmannshagen, Boltenhagen, Bretwisch, Dönnie, Grabow, Griebenow, Grischow, Groß Bisdorf, Gülzow-Dorf, Kaschow, Kreutzmannshagen, Prützmannshagen, Rakow, Schmietkow, Willershusen, Willerswalde, Wüst Eldena, Wüstenbilow, Zarnewanz

Gemeinde Sundhagen, die Ortsteile: Bremerhagen, Gerdeswalde, Horst, Segebadenhau, Wendorf

Stadt Grimmen mit den Ortsteilen: Appelshof, Jessin, Gerlachsruh, Groß Lehmhagen, Hohenwarth, Hohenwieden, Klein Lehmhagen, Vietlipp

Gemeinde Wendisch-Baggendorf, der Ortsteil: Borgstedt

9.2.2023

NIEDERSACHSEN

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00099

Landkreis Cloppenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.005787/52.950081)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Bösel, Emstek, Garrel, Großenkneten, Molbergen, Wardenburg und der Städte Cloppenburg und Friesoythe.

21.1.2023

Landkreis Cloppenburg

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.005787/52.950081)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Garrel.

12.1.2023 -21.1.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00101

Landkreis Cloppenburg

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.012005/52.952218)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Garrel.

15.1.2023 – 23.1.2023

Landkreis Cloppenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.012005/52.952218)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Bösel, Emstek, Garrel, Großenkneten, Molbergen, Wardenburg und der Städte Cloppenburg und Friesoythe.

23.1.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00103

Landkreis Cloppenburg

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.982109/52.959481)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Garrel, Bösel und Friesoythe.

25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023

Landkreis Cloppenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.982109/52.959481)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinden Garrel, Bösel, Friesoythe, Molbergen, Stadt Cloppenburg, Emstek und Großenkneten.

2.2.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Landkreis Cloppenburg

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.998687/52.959784)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Garrel, Bösel und Friesoythe.

27.1.2023 – 4.2.2023

Landkreis Cloppenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.998687/52.959784)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Garrel, Bösel, Friesoythe, Molbergen, Stadt Cloppenburg und Emstek.

4.2.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00102

Landkreis Cuxhaven

3 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.656393/53.671901)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Geestland.

22.1.2023 – 30.1.2023

Landkreis Cuxhaven

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 8.656393/53.671901)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Geestland.

30.1.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2022-00103

Landkreis Oldenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.982109/52.959481)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Großenkneten.

2.2.2023

DE-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Landkreis Oldenburg

10 km Radius um den Ausbruchsbetrieb (GPS-Koordinaten 7.998687/52.959784)

Betroffen sind Teile der Gemeinde Großenkneten und Wardenburg.

4.2.2023

Member State: Spain

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ES-HPAI(P)-2022-00038 | Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarca of Tordesillas beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,6551761, lat 41,5811216 | 21.1.2023 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarca of Tordesillas contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,6551761, lat 41,5811216 | 13.1.2023 -21.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

ES-HPAI(P)-2022-00038

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarca of Tordesillas beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,6551761, lat 41,5811216

21.1.2023

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarca of Tordesillas contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,6551761, lat 41,5811216

13.1.2023 -21.1.2023

Member State: France

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Département: Côtes-d’Armor (22) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01619 | CANIHUEL
  HAUT-CORLAY
  CORLAY
  PLUSSULIEN
  SAINT-IGEAUX
  SAINT-NICOLAS DU PELEM
  SAINT-GILLES-PLIGEAUX
  KERPERT
  SAINTE-TREPHINE
  SAINT-MAYEUX
  CAUREL
  BON REPOS SUR BLAVET
  PLOUNEVEZ-QUINTIN
  LANRIVAIN
  LE VIEUX-BOURG
  SAINT-BIHY
  LA HARMOYE
  SAINT-MARTIN-DES-PRES
  SAINT-GILLES-VIEUX-MARCHE | 2.2.2023 |
| CANIHUEL
  HAUT-CORLAY
  CORLAY
  PLUSSULIEN
  SAINT-IGEAUX
  SAINT-NICOLAS DU PELEM | 25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00014 | BÉGARD
  BERHET
  COATRÉVEN
  CAVAN
  COATASCORN
  KERMARIA-SULARD
  LANGOAT
  LANMERIN
  LANNION
  LE-VIEUX-MARCHÉ
  LOUANNEC
  LOUARGAT
  MANTALLOT
  PLOUARET
  PLOUBEZRE
  PLOULEC’H
  PLOUMILLIAU
  PLOUZÉLAMBRE
  PRAT
  QUEMPERVEN
  ROSPEZ
  SAINT-QUAY-PERROS
  TRÉGROM
  TRÉZÉNY
  PLUZUNET | 9.2.2023 |
| CAVAN
  CAOUENNEC-LANVÉZÉAC
  LANNION
  PLOUBEZRE
  TONQUÉDEC | 1.2.2023 – 9.2.2023 |
| Département: Creuse (23) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00005 | BASVILLE
  BEISSAT
  CROCQ
  MAGNAT-L’ÉTRANGE
  MALLERET
  SAINT-AGNANT-PRÈS-CROCQ
  SAINT-GEORGES-NIGREMONT
  SAINT-MARTIAL-LE-VIEUX
  SAINT-MAURICE-PRÈS-CROCQ
  SAINT-MERD-LA-BREUILLE
  SAINT-ORADOUX-DE-CHIROUZE | 17.2.2023 |
| FLAYAT | 9.2.2023 – 17.2.2023 |
| Département: Dordogne (24) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01481
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01480
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01517
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01558
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01559
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01581 | VALOJOULX
  LA DORNAC
  NADAILLAC
  SAINT-VINCENT-LE-PALUEL
  PRATS6DE-CARLUX
  BORREZE
  MARQUAY
  SAINT-AMAND-DE-COLY
  PROISSANS
  SAINT-ANDRE-D’ALLAS
  SARLAT-LA-CANEDA
  SIMEYROLS
  TAMNIES
  AUBAS
  MONTIGNAC
  JAYAC
  LA CASSAGNE
  LA CHAPELLE-AUBAREIL
  COLY
  ORLIAGUET
  SAINTE-NATHALENE
  SALIGNAC-EYVIGUES
  MARCILLAC SAINT QUENTIN | 27.1.2023 |
| ARCHIGNAC
  MARCILLAC SAINT QUENTIN
  PAULIN
  SAINT CREPIN ET CARLUCET
  SAINT GENIES
  SALIGNAC EYVIGUES | 19.1.2023 – 27.1.2023 |
| Département: Gers (32) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01605
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01612
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00008
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00012
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00013 | ARBLADE-LE-HAUT
  ARMOUS-ET-CAU
  AVERON-BERGELLE
  BETOUS
  CAHUZAC-SUR-ADOUR
  CASTELNAVET
  CASTILLON-DEBATS
  CAUMONT
  COURTIES
  CRAVENCERES
  DEMU
  ESPAS
  GALIAX
  GAZAX-ET-BACCARISSE
  GOUX
  JU-BELLOC
  JUILLAC
  LADEVEZE-RIVIERE
  LANNE-SOUBIRAN
  LOUBEDAT
  LOUSLITGES
  LUPIAC
  MARGOUET-MEYMES
  MAULICHERES
  MAUMUSSON-LAGUIAN
  NOGARO
  PEYRUSSE-GRANDE
  PEYRUSSE-VIEILLE
  PLAISANCE
  PRECHAC-SUR-ADOUR
  RISCLE
  SAINT-AUNIX-LENGROS
  SAINT-GRIEDE
  SAINT-MARTIN-D’ARMAGNAC
  SAINT-PIERRE-D’AUBEZIES
  SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D’ARMAGNAC
  SARRAGACHIES
  SEAILLES
  SION
  SORBETS
  TARSAC
  TIESTE-URAGNOUX
  TOURDUN
  URGOSSE | 6.2.2023 |
| AIGNAN
  BEAUMARCHES
  BOUZON-GELLENAVE
  COULOUME-MONDEBAT
  FUSTEROUAU
  IZOTGES
  LASSERADE
  LOUSSOUS-DEBAT
  POUYDRAGUIN
  SABAZAN
  TASQUE
  TERMES-D’ARMAGNAC | 29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023 |
| Département: Ille-et-Vilaine (35) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00004 | LA BAZOUGE-DU-DÉSERT
  BEAUCÉ
  LE CHATELIER,
  FLEURIGNÉ
  JAVENÉ
  LANDEAN
  LE LOROUX
  PARIGNE,
  ROMAGNÉ
  SAINT GERMAIN EN COGLES,
  LA SELLE-EN-LUITRÉ
  VILLAMÉE
  LOUVIGNÉ-DU-DÉSERT
  MELLE
  POILLEY
  LES PORTES DU COGLAIS
  MAEN-ROCH
  SAINT-SAUVEUR DES LANDES
  LUITRE-DOMPIERRE
  LA CHAPELLE JANSON | 6.2.2023 |
| LECOUSSE
  FOUGERES
  LAIGNELET
  SAINT GERMAIN EN COGLES,
  LE CHATELIER,
  PARIGNE
  LANDEAN | 29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023 |
| | Département: Indre (36) | |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00405 | AIZE
  BAGNEUX Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D25
  BAUDRES
  BOUGES-LE-CHATEAU Partie de commune située au Nord de la D2, puis de la D34A
  BUXEUIL
  FONTGUENAND Partie de commune située au Sud de la D52
  GUILLY
  LANGE
  POULAINES Partie de commune située au Nord de D960
  ROUVRES LES BOIS
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-EN-BAZELLE partie de commune située au Sud-Ouest de D25
  SEMBLECAY Partie de commune située au Sud de D25
  VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Nord-Ouest du Nahon
  VAL-FOUZON
  VEUIL
  VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D956 et au Sud de la D109 | 26.1.2023 |
| POULAINES Partie de commune située au Sud de la D960
  VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Sud- Est du Nahon
  VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Est de la D956 et au Nord de la D109 | 17.1.2023 – 26.1.2023 |
| Département: Loire-Atlantique (44) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01492
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01497
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01505 | CASSON
  LE CELLIER
  COUFFE
  HERIC
  JOUE-SUR-ERDRE
  MESANGER
  MOUZEIL
  NORT-SUR-ERDRE
  RIAILLE
  SAFFRE
  SAINT-MARS-DU-DESERT
  SUCE-SUR-ERDRE
  TEILLE
  TRANS-SUR-ERDRE | 18.1.2023 |
| LIGNE
  NORT-SUR-ERDRE
  PETIT-MARS
  LES TOUCHES | 9.1.2023 – 18.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01466
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01591
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01592
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01609
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01616
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00001
  2023-00015
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00009 | LA PLANCHE
  REMOUILLE
  MONTBERT
  AIGREFEUILLE
  SAINT LUMINE DE CLISSON
  LA CHEVROLIERE
  CORCOUE SUR LORGNE
  GENESTON
  LA LIMOUZINIERE
  MACHECOUL SAINT MEME
  LA MARNE
  SAINT MARS DE COUTAIS
  PAULX
  SAINT COLOMBAN
  SAINT PHILBERT DE GRAND LIEU
  SAINT ETIENNE DE MER MORTE
  SAINT HILAIRE DE CLISSON | 6.2.2023 |
| VIEILLEVIGNE
  CORCOUE SUR LORGNE
  LEGE
  SAINT LUMINE DE COUTAIS
  SAINT PHILBERT DE GRAND LIEU
  LA LIMOUZINIERE
  PAULX
  TOUVOIS | 29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498 | Bégrolles-en-Mauges
  Chanteloup-les-Bois
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Cholet
  Cléré-sur-Layon
  La Plaine
  La Séguinière
  La Tessouale
  Le May-sur-Evre
  Le Puy-Saint-Bonnet
  Les Cerqueux-sous-Passavant
  Nueil-sur-Layon
  En entier
  En entier
  Chaudron-en-Mauges
  La Boissière-sur-Evre
  La Chaussaire
  La Salle-et-Chapelle-Aubry
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Nuaillé
  Passavant-sur-Layon
  Saint-Christophe-du-Bois
  Saint-Léger-sous-Cholet
  Le Longeron
  Saint-Crespin-sur-Moine
  Saint-Germain-sur-Moine
  Tillières
  Somloire
  Toutlemonde
  Trémentines | 27.1.2023 |
| Andrezé
  Beaupréau
  Gesté
  Jallais
  La Chapelle-du-Genêt
  La Jubaudière
  La Poitevinière
  Le Pin-en-Mauges
  Saint-Philbert-en-Mauges
  Villedieu-la-Blouère
  La Romagne
  Le Fief-Sauvin
  La Renaudière
  Montfaucon-Montigné
  Roussay
  Saint-André-de-la-Marche
  Saint-Macaire-en-Mauges | 19.1.2023 – 27.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01504 | LA BOISSIERE-DU-DORE
  LA REGRIPPIERE
  LA REMAUDIERE | 2.2.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01554 | CLISSON
  GORGES
  MOUZILLON
  SAINT HILAIRE DE CLISSON
  VALLETS | 7.2.2023 |
| BOUSSAY
  GETIGNE | 19.1.2023 – 7.2.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00010 | RIAILLE
  BONNEUVRE
  PANNECE
  TEILLE
  TRANS SUR ERDRE
  MOUZEIL
  LIGNE
  COUFFE
  OUDON
  ANCENIS SAINT GEREON
  VAIR SUR LOIRE
  LA ROCHE BLANCHE
  POUILLE LES COTEAUX | 5.2.2023 |
| MESANGER
  TEILLE | 27.1.2023 – 5.2.2023 |
| Departement: Maine-et-Loire (49) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01457
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01471
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01472
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01483
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01485
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01486
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01487
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01489
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01496
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01506
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01511
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01512
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01516
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01518
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01519
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01524
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01458
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01467
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01535
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01545
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01547
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01549
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01548
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01564
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01571
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01573
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01578
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01579
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01580
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01586
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01594
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01603
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00016 | Bégrolles-en-Mauges
  Chanteloup-les-Bois
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Chemillé-en-Anjou
  Cholet
  Cléré-sur-Layon
  La Plaine
  La Séguinière
  La Tessouale
  Le May-sur-Evre
  Le Puy-Saint-Bonnet
  Les Cerqueux-sous-Passavant
  Nueil-sur-Layon
  En entier
  En entier
  Chaudron-en-Mauges
  La Boissière-sur-Evre
  La Chaussaire
  La Salle-et-Chapelle-Aubry
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Montrevault-sur-Evre
  Nuaillé
  Passavant-sur-Layon
  Saint-Christophe-du-Bois
  Saint-Léger-sous-Cholet
  Le Longeron
  Saint-Crespin-sur-Moine
  Saint-Germain-sur-Moine
  Tillières
  Somloire
  Toutlemonde
  Trémentines | 8.2.2023 |
| ANDREZÉ
  BEAUPRÉAU
  GESTÉ
  JALLAIS
  LA CHAPELLE-DU-GENÊT
  LA JUBAUDIÈRE
  LA POITEVINIÈRE
  LE PIN-EN-MAUGES
  SAINT-PHILBERT-EN-MAUGES
  VILLEDIEU-LA-BLOUÈRE
  LA ROMAGNE
  LE FIEF-SAUVIN
  LA RENAUDIÈRE
  MONTFAUCON-MONTIGNÉ
  ROUSSAY
  SAINT-ANDRÉ-DE-LA-MARCHE
  SAINT-MACAIRE-EN-MAUGES
  TORFOU | 31.1.2023 – 8.2.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01606 | BOUILLE MENARD
  CHAZE SUR ARGOS
  GENE
  VERN D ANJOU
  LION D’ANGERS
  AVIRE
  LE BOURG D’IRE
  LA CHAPELLE SUR OUDON
  CHATELAIS
  LA FERRIERE DE FLEE
  L"HOTELLERIE DE FLEE
  LOUVAINES
  MARANS
  MONTGUILLON
  NOYANT LA GRAVOYERE
  NYOISEAU
  SAINTE GEMMES D’ANDIGNE
  SAINT MARTIN DU BOIS
  SAINT SAUVEUR DE FLEE | 25.1.2023 |
| LOUVAINES
  NYOISEAU
  SEGRE’ | 17.1.2023 – 25.1.2023 |
| Departement: Manche (50) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00420 | AUMEVILLE LESTRE
  BRILLEVAST
  BRIX
  CHERBOURG EN COTENTIN
  COLOMBY
  CRASVILLE
  DIGOSVILLE
  ECAUSSEVILLE
  EMONDEVILLE
  EROUDEVILLE
  FLOTTEMANVILLE
  FONTENAY SUR MER
  FRESVILLE
  GOLLEVILLE
  GONNEVILLE LE THEIL
  HAUTTEVILLE BOCAGE
  HEMEVEZ
  HUBERVILLE
  JOGANVILLE
  L’ETANG BERTRAND
  LE HAM
  LE MESNIL AU VAL
  LE VAST
  LESTRE
  LIEUSAINT
  MAGNEVILLE
  MONTAIGU LA BRISETTE
  MONTEBOURG
  MORSALINES
  MORVILLE
  NEGREVILLE
  OCTEVILLE L’AVENEL
  ORGLANDES
  OZEVILLE
  QUETTEHOU
  QUINEVILLE
  ROCHEVILLE
  SAINT CYR
  SAINT FLOXEL
  SAINT GERMAIN DE TOURNEBUT
  SAINT JOSEPH
  SAINT MARTIN D’AUDOUVILLE
  SAUSSEMESNIL
  SORTOSVILLE
  SOTTEVAST
  TEMERVILLE
  TEURTHEVILLE BOCAGE
  URVILLE
  VALOGNES
  VAUDREVILLE
  VIDECOSVILLE
  YVETOT BOCAGE | 28.1.2023 |
| HUBERVILLE
  MONTAIGU LA BRISETTE
  SAINT CYR
  SAINT GERMAIN DE TOURNEBUT
  SAUSSEMESNIL
  TAMERVILLE
  VALOGNES | 20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023 |
| Departement: Morbihan (56) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01422
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01435
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01443
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01444
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01445 | BIGNAN – Commune entière
  BILLIO – Commune entière
  BULEON – Commune entière
  CREDIN – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D11 jusqu’à Bellevue puis au sud de la route allant de Bellevue à Le Pont du redressement
  CRUGUEL – Commune entière
  GUEGON -Partie de la commune au sud de la N24
  GUEHENNO – Commune entière
  EVELLYS – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D767 jusqu’à Siviac puis au nord-ouest de la route allant à Naizin puis au nord de la D203
  JOSSELIN – Commune entière
  KERFOURN – Partie de la commmune au sud de la route allant de Le Guéric à Le Lindreu
  LA CROIX HELLEAN – Commune entière
  LANOUEE – Partie de la commune à l’est de la rivière de l’Oust jusqu’à Pomeleuc puis au nord de la D155 jusqu’à la Ville Hervieux puis au nord de la 764 jusqu’à la N24
  LANTILLAC – Commune entière
  LES FORGES – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D778
  LOCMINE – Commune entière
  MOREAC – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Legal puis au sud de la D181 jusqu’à Keranna puis au sud de la route allant de Keranna à Kervalo en passant par Le Petit Kerimars, Bolcalpère et le Faouët d’En Haut
  MOUSTOIR-AC – Partie de la commune au nord de la route allant de Plumelin à Moustoir-Ac puis au nord de la D318 et à l’ouest de la D767
  PLEUGRIFFET – Commune entière
  PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY – Partie de la commune au sud de la D203 et à l’est de la route allant du bourg à Talhouet Avalec en passant par Kerjegu et Beau Soleil
  PLUMELIN – Partie de la commune au nord de la D117 jusqu’à Kerfourchec puis à l’est de la route allant à Moustoir-Ac
  RADENAC – Commune entière
  REGUINY – Partie de la commune au nord de la D203 jusqu’à Le Pont Saint Fiacre
  SAINT-ALLOUESTRE – Commune entière | 17.1.2023 |
| EVELLYS -Partie de la commune à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Siviac puis à l’est de la route allant à Naizin puis au sud de la D203
  MOREAC – Partie de la commune à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Legal puis au nord de la D181 jusqu’à Keranna puis au nord de la route allant de Keranna à Kervalo en passant par Le Petit Kerimars, Bolcalpère et le Faouët d’En Haut
  REGUINY – Partie de la commune au sud de la D203 jusqu’à Le Pont Saint Fiacre
  RADENAC -Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D11
  BULEON – Partie de la commune au nord de la N24
  GUEGON – Partie de la commune au nord de la N24
  LANOUEE – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la rivière de l’Oust jusqu’à Pomeleuc puis au sud de la D155 jusqu’à la Ville Hervieux puis au sud de la 764 jusqu’à la N24
  LANTILLAC – Commune entière
  PLEUGRIFFET – Partie de la commune au sud de la D117 | 9.1.2023 – 17.1.2023 |
| Département: Nord (59) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01434 | ALLENES-LES-MARAIS
  ANNOEULLIN
  BAILLEUL
  BAUVIN
  BEAUCAMPS-LIGNY
  BOIS-GRENIER
  DON
  ERQUINGHEM-LE-SEC
  ERQUINGHEM-LYS
  ESCOBECQUES
  FOURNES-EN-WEPPES
  FROMELLES
  HALLENNE-LES-HAUBOURDIN
  HANTAY
  LA BASSEE
  LA GORGUE
  LE MAISNIL
  MARQUILLIES
  MERRIS
  MERVILLE
  METEREN
  NIEPPE
  PROVIN
  RADINGHEM-EN-WEPPES
  SAINGHIN-EN-WEPPES
  SALOME
  STRAZEELE
  VIEUX-BERQUIN
  WAVRIN
  WICRES | 17.1.2023 |
| NEUF-BERQUIN
  STEENWERCK
  ESTAIRES
  LE DOULIEU
  AUBERS
  HERLIES
  ILLIES | 9.1.2023 – 17.1.2023 |
| Département: Puy-de-Dôme (63) |
| FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00005 | FERNOEL
  GIAT
  VERNEUGHEOL | 17.2.2023 |
| Département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01598 | ALLIER
  ANGOS
  ANTIST
  ARTIGUEMY
  AUBAREDE
  AUREILHAN
  BARBAZAN-DEBAT
  BARBAZAN-DESSUS
  BEGOLE
  BERNAC-DEBAT
  BERNAC-DESSUS
  BERNADETS-DESSUS
  BONNEFONT
  BONNEMAZON
  BOULIN
  BUGARD
  BURG
  CABANAC
  CAHARET
  CALAVANTE
  CASTELVIEILH
  CASTERA-LANUSSE
  CASTILLON
  CHELLE-SPOU
  CIEUTAT
  CLARAC
  COUSSAN
  FRECHOU-FRECHET
  GONEZ
  GOUDON
  GOURGUE
  HITTE
  HOURC
  LANESPEDE
  LANSAC
  LASLADES
  LESPOUEY
  LIZOS
  LUC
  LUTILHOUS
  MARQUERIE
  MAUVEZIN
  MERILHEU
  MONTASTRUC
  MONTGAILLARD
  MONTIGNAC
  MOULEDOUS
  ORIEUX
  ORIGNAC
  PERE
  PEYRIGUERE
  POUYASTRUC
  RICAUD
  SALLES-ADOUR
  SARROUILLES
  SEMEAC
  SERE-RUSTAING
  SOUES
  SOUYEAUX
  THUY
  VIELLE-ADOUR | 23.1.2023 |
| BORDES
  LHEZ
  MASCARAS
  OLEAC-DESSUS
  OUEILLOUX
  OZON
  PEYRAUBE
  POUMAROUS
  SINZOS
  TOURNAY | 15.1.2023 – 23.1.2023 |
| Département: Rhône (69) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01597 | ANCY
  BAGNOLS
  BELMONT-D’AZERGUES
  BESSENAY
  BIBOST
  BULLY
  EVEUX
  BRULLIOLES
  BRUSSIEU
  BULLY
  CHARNAY
  CHATILLON
  CHAZAY-D’AZERGUES
  CHESSY
  CHEVINAY
  CIVRIEUX-D’AZERGUES
  COURZIEU
  DAREIZE
  DOMMARTIN
  EVEUX
  FLEURIEUX-SUR-L’ARBRESLE
  GREZIEU-LA-VARENNE
  LEGNY
  LENTILLY
  LOZANNE
  MARCY-L’ETOILE
  MONTROTTIER
  MORANCE
  LES OLMES
  POLLIONNAY
  PONTCHARRA-SUR-TURDINE
  SARCEY
  SOURCIEUX-LES-MINES
  SAINTE-CONSORCE
  SAINT-FORGEUX
  SAINT-GERMAIN-NUELLES
  SAINT-JEAN-DES-VIGNES
  SAINT-JULIEN-SUR-BIBOST
  SAINT-LOUP
  SAINT-PIERRE-LA-PALUD
  SAINT-ROMAIN-DE-POPEY
  SAINT-VERAND
  LA TOUR-DE-SALVAGNY
  VAUGNERAY | 27.1.2023 |
| L’ARBRESLE
  SAIN BEL
  SAVIGNY | 19.1.2023 – 27.1.2023 |
| Département: Sarthe (72) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01584 | ASSE LE RIBOUL
  BALLON SAINT MARS
  BEAUMONT SUR SARTHE
  CHERANCE
  CONGE-SUR-ORNE
  COURGAINS
  DANGEUL
  FRESNAY-SUR-SARTHE
  GRANDCHAMP
  JUILLE
  LOUVIGNY
  LUCE-SOUS-BALLON
  MARESCHE
  MAROLLES-LES-BRAULTS
  LES MEES
  MEZIERE-SOUS-PONTHOUIN
  MOITRON-SUR-SARTHE
  MONHOUDOU
  MONTBIZOT
  PIACE
  RENE
  ROUESSE-FONTAINE
  SAINT-AIGNAN
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-JAMBET
  SAINT-MARCEAU
  SAOSNES
  TEILLE
  THOIGNE
  THOIREE-SOUS-CONTENSOR
  VIVOIN | 18.1.2023 |
| CHERANCE
  DANGEUL
  DOUCELLES
  MEURCE
  NOUANS
  RENE
  VIVOIN | 9.1.2023 – 18.1.2023 |
| Département: Deux-Sèvres (79) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01411
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01415
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01414
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01417
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01430
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01436
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01428
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01447
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01448
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01477
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01450
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01475
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01474
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01482
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01484
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01473
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01502
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01504
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01515
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01499
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01521
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01522
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01532
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01544
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01569
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01587
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01588 | ADILLY
  AMAILLOUX
  ARDIN
  ARGENTON-L’EGLISE
  BECELEUF
  LE BEUGNON
  BOUILLE-LORETZ
  LA CHAPELLE-THIREUIL
  CHICHE
  CLESSÉ
  COULONGES-SUR-L’AUTIZE
  COULONGES-THOUARSAIS
  FAYE-L’ABESSE
  FÉNERY
  FENIOUX
  LA FORÊT-SUR-SÈVRE
  GEAY
  LUCHE-THOUARSAIS
  MAUZE-THOUARSAIS
  MONCOUTANT
  MOUTIERS-SOUS-CHANTEMERLE
  POUGNE-HÉRISSON
  PUIHARDY
  SAINT-AUBIN-LE-CLOUD
  SAINT-GERMAIN-DE-LONGUE-CHAUME
  SAINT-JOUIN-DE-MILLY
  SAINT-LAURS
  SAINT-MAIXENT-DE-BEUGNE
  SAINT-MAURICE-ETUSSON
  SAINT-POMPAIN
  SCILLÉ
  SECONDIGNY
  VILLIERS-EN-PLAINE
  VOULMENTIN | 28.1.2023 |
| L’ABSIE
  ARGENTONNAY
  BOISME
  BRESSUIRE
  BRETIGNOLLES
  LE BREUIL-BERNARD
  LE BUSSEAU
  CERIZAY
  CHANTELOUP
  LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-ETIENNE
  LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-LAURENT
  CIRIERES
  COMBRAND
  COURLAY
  GENNETON
  LARGEASSE
  MAULEON
  MONTRAVERS
  NEUVY-BOUIN
  NUEIL-LES-AUBIERS
  LA PETITE-BOISSIERE
  LE PIN
  PUGNY
  SAINT-AMAND-SUR-SEVRE
  SAINT-ANDRE-SUR-SEVRE
  SAINT-AUBIN-DU-PLAIN
  SAINT-PAUL-EN-GATINE
  SAINT PIERRE DES ECHAUBROGNES
  TRAYES
  VAL-EN-VIGNES
  VERNOUX-EN-GATINE | 20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023 |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01449 | CHANTECORPS
  CLAVE
  COUTIERES
  EXIREUIL
  FOMPERRON
  LES FORGES
  NANTEUIL
  PAMPROUX
  REFFANNES
  SAINT-GERMIER
  SAINT-MARTIN-DU-FOUILLOUX
  SOUDAN
  VAUSSEROUX
  VAUTEBIS | 29.2.2023 |
| MENIGOUTE
  VASLES | 20.1.2023 –29.2.2023 |
| Département: Vendée (85) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01424
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01426
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01438
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01440
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01441
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01442
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01446
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01451
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01454
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01455
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01456
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01459
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01460
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01461
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01462
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01463
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01464
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01469
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01470
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01478
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01479
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01488
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01490
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01491
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01493
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01494
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01495
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01500
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01503
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01507
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01508
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01509
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01510
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01513
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01514
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01520
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01525
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01527
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01528
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01529
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01530
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01531
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01533
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01537
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01539
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01540
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01542
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01543
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01546
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01551
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01552
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01553
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01555
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01556
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01557
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01583
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01585
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01589
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01590
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01593
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01595
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01596
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01599
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01600
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01601
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01602
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01604
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01607
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01608
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01610
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01611
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01613
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01614
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01615
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01618
  FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01620
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00002
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00003
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00004
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00005
  FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00006 | SAINT HILAIRE DES LOGES au sud de la D745
  FOUSSAIS PAYRE a l’ouest de la D49
  FAYMOREAU
  MARILLET
  ANTIGNY
  BOURNEAU
  CEZAIS
  FONTENAY-LE-COMTE
  L’ORBRIE
  LA CHATAIGNERAIE
  LA TARDIERE
  LOGE-FOUGEREUSE
  MARSAIS-SAINTE-RADEGONDE
  SAINT-MARTIN-DE-FRAIGNEAU
  SAINT-MAURICE-DES-NOUES
  SAINT-PIERRE-DU-CHEMIN
  SERIGNE
  PISSOTTE
  MARVENT
  NIEUL-SUR-L’AUTISTE
  PUY-DE-SERRE
  SAINT-HILAIRE-DE-VOUST
  VOUVANT
  SAINT-MICHEL-LE-CLOUCQ
  XANTON-CHASSENON
  SAINT HILAIRE DES LOGES au nord de la D745
  FOUSSAIS PAYRE à l’est de la D49
  BREUIL-BARRET
  LA CHAPELLE-AUX-LYS
  LOGE-FOUGEREUSE
  SAINT-HILAIRE-DE-VOUST
  BAZOGES-EN-PAILLERS
  BEAUREPAIRE
  BESSAY
  BOURNEZEAU au nord de la D948 et de la D949B
  CHAILLE-LES-MARAIS
  CHAMPAGNE-LES-MARAIS
  CHANTONNAY à l’ouest de la D137
  CHÂTEAU-GUIBERT à l’est de la D746
  CHAUCHE à l’ouest de l’A83
  CHAVAGNES-EN-PAILLERS au nord de la D6
  CORPE
  DOMPIERRE-SUR-YON
  ESSARTS EN BOCAGE
  FOUGERE
  LA BOISSIERE-DE-MONTAIGU au sud de la D23 et D72
  LA CHAIZE-LE-VICOMTE au sud de la D948
  LA COPECHAGNIERE
  LA FERRIERE
  LA MERLATIERE
  LA RABATELIERE
  LA REORTHE
  LA ROCHE-SUR-YON à l’est de la D746 et D763
  LES BROUZILS
  LES HERBIERS au nord de la D160 et à l’ouest de la D23
  LES LANDES-GENUSSON au sud de la D72 et D755
  MAREUIL-SUR-LAY-DISSAIS à l’est de la D746
  MESNARD-LA-BAROTIERE
  MOUTIERS-SUR-LE-LAY au sud de la D19
  RIVES-DE-L’YON à l’est de la D746
  SAINT-ANDRE-GOULE-D’OIE au sud de l’A87
  SAINTE-CECILE
  SAINTE-HERMINE
  SAINTE-PEXINE au sud de la D19
  SAINT-FULGENT à l’est de l’A87
  SAINT-GEORGES-DE-MONTAIGU
  SAINT-HILAIRE-LE-VOUHIS
  SAINT-JEAN-DE-BEUGNE
  SAINT-JUIRE-CHAMPGILLON
  SAINT-MARTIN-DES-NOYERS à l’est de la D7
  THORIGNY
  LES MAGNILS-REIGNIERS
  LUCON
  MOUZEUIL-SAINT-MARTIN
  NALLIERS
  PUYRAVAULT
  SAINT-AUBIN-LA-PLAINE
  SAINTE-GEMME-LA-PLAINE
  SAINTE-RADEGONDE-DES6NOYERS
  SAINTE-ETIENNE-DE6BRILLOUET
  TRIAIZE
  VENDRENNES
  BOURNEZEAU au sud de la D498 et de la D949B
  LES PINEAUX
  MOUTIERS-SUR-LE-LAY
  SAINTE-PEXINE au nord de la D19
  SAINT-MARTIN-DES-NOYERS à l’ouest de la D7
  LA CHAIZE-LE-VICOME au nord de la D948
  LA FERRIERE au sud de la D160
  CHAUCHE à l’est de l’A83
  CHAVAGNES-EN-PAILLERS au sud de la D6
  SAINT-ANDRE-GOULE-D’OIE au nord de l’A87
  SAINT-FULGENT à l’ouest de l’A87
  BREM-SUR-MER
  BRETIGNOLLES-SUR-MER
  COEX
  GIVRAND
  LA CHAIZE-GIRAUD
  LA CHAPELLE-HERMIER
  L’AIUGUILLON-SUR-VIE
  LES ACHARDS
  L’ILE-D’OLONNE
  MARTINET
  OLONNE-SUR-MER
  SAINTE-FOY
  SAINT-GEORGES-DES-POINTINDOUX
  SAINT-JULIEN-DES-LANDES
  SAINT-MATHURIN
  SAINT-REVEREND
  BREM-SUR-MER
  LANDEVIEILLE
  SAINT-JULIEN-DES-LANDES
  VAIRE | 2.2.2023 |
| Département: Vienne (86) |
| FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00019 | CURZAY SUR VONNE
  JAZENEUIL
  ROUILLE
  SAINT SAUVANT
  SANXAY | 15.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Département: Côtes-d’Armor (22)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01619

CANIHUEL

HAUT-CORLAY

CORLAY

PLUSSULIEN

SAINT-IGEAUX

SAINT-NICOLAS DU PELEM

SAINT-GILLES-PLIGEAUX

KERPERT

SAINTE-TREPHINE

SAINT-MAYEUX

CAUREL

BON REPOS SUR BLAVET

PLOUNEVEZ-QUINTIN

LANRIVAIN

LE VIEUX-BOURG

SAINT-BIHY

LA HARMOYE

SAINT-MARTIN-DES-PRES

SAINT-GILLES-VIEUX-MARCHE

2.2.2023

CANIHUEL

HAUT-CORLAY

CORLAY

PLUSSULIEN

SAINT-IGEAUX

SAINT-NICOLAS DU PELEM

25.1.2023 – 2.2.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00014

BÉGARD

BERHET

COATRÉVEN

CAVAN

COATASCORN

KERMARIA-SULARD

LANGOAT

LANMERIN

LANNION

LE-VIEUX-MARCHÉ

LOUANNEC

LOUARGAT

MANTALLOT

PLOUARET

PLOUBEZRE

PLOULEC’H

PLOUMILLIAU

PLOUZÉLAMBRE

PRAT

QUEMPERVEN

ROSPEZ

SAINT-QUAY-PERROS

TRÉGROM

TRÉZÉNY

PLUZUNET

9.2.2023

CAVAN

CAOUENNEC-LANVÉZÉAC

LANNION

PLOUBEZRE

TONQUÉDEC

1.2.2023 – 9.2.2023

Département: Creuse (23)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00005

BASVILLE

BEISSAT

CROCQ

MAGNAT-L’ÉTRANGE

MALLERET

SAINT-AGNANT-PRÈS-CROCQ

SAINT-GEORGES-NIGREMONT

SAINT-MARTIAL-LE-VIEUX

SAINT-MAURICE-PRÈS-CROCQ

SAINT-MERD-LA-BREUILLE

SAINT-ORADOUX-DE-CHIROUZE

17.2.2023

FLAYAT

9.2.2023 – 17.2.2023

Département: Dordogne (24)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01481

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01480

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01517

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01558

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01559

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01581

VALOJOULX

LA DORNAC

NADAILLAC

SAINT-VINCENT-LE-PALUEL

PRATS6DE-CARLUX

BORREZE

MARQUAY

SAINT-AMAND-DE-COLY

PROISSANS

SAINT-ANDRE-D’ALLAS

SARLAT-LA-CANEDA

SIMEYROLS

TAMNIES

AUBAS

MONTIGNAC

JAYAC

LA CASSAGNE

LA CHAPELLE-AUBAREIL

COLY

ORLIAGUET

SAINTE-NATHALENE

SALIGNAC-EYVIGUES

MARCILLAC SAINT QUENTIN

27.1.2023

ARCHIGNAC

MARCILLAC SAINT QUENTIN

PAULIN

SAINT CREPIN ET CARLUCET

SAINT GENIES

SALIGNAC EYVIGUES

19.1.2023 – 27.1.2023

Département: Gers (32)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01605

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01612

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00012

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00013

ARBLADE-LE-HAUT

ARMOUS-ET-CAU

AVERON-BERGELLE

BETOUS

CAHUZAC-SUR-ADOUR

CASTELNAVET

CASTILLON-DEBATS

CAUMONT

COURTIES

CRAVENCERES

DEMU

ESPAS

GALIAX

GAZAX-ET-BACCARISSE

GOUX

JU-BELLOC

JUILLAC

LADEVEZE-RIVIERE

LANNE-SOUBIRAN

LOUBEDAT

LOUSLITGES

LUPIAC

MARGOUET-MEYMES

MAULICHERES

MAUMUSSON-LAGUIAN

NOGARO

PEYRUSSE-GRANDE

PEYRUSSE-VIEILLE

PLAISANCE

PRECHAC-SUR-ADOUR

RISCLE

SAINT-AUNIX-LENGROS

SAINT-GRIEDE

SAINT-MARTIN-D’ARMAGNAC

SAINT-PIERRE-D’AUBEZIES

SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D’ARMAGNAC

SARRAGACHIES

SEAILLES

SION

SORBETS

TARSAC

TIESTE-URAGNOUX

TOURDUN

URGOSSE

6.2.2023

AIGNAN

BEAUMARCHES

BOUZON-GELLENAVE

COULOUME-MONDEBAT

FUSTEROUAU

IZOTGES

LASSERADE

LOUSSOUS-DEBAT

POUYDRAGUIN

SABAZAN

TASQUE

TERMES-D’ARMAGNAC

29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023

Département: Ille-et-Vilaine (35)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00004

LA BAZOUGE-DU-DÉSERT

BEAUCÉ

LE CHATELIER,

FLEURIGNÉ

JAVENÉ

LANDEAN

LE LOROUX

PARIGNE,

ROMAGNÉ

SAINT GERMAIN EN COGLES,

LA SELLE-EN-LUITRÉ

VILLAMÉE

LOUVIGNÉ-DU-DÉSERT

MELLE

POILLEY

LES PORTES DU COGLAIS

MAEN-ROCH

SAINT-SAUVEUR DES LANDES

LUITRE-DOMPIERRE

LA CHAPELLE JANSON

6.2.2023

LECOUSSE

FOUGERES

LAIGNELET

SAINT GERMAIN EN COGLES,

LE CHATELIER,

PARIGNE

LANDEAN

29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023

Département: Indre (36)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00405

AIZE

BAGNEUX Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D25

BAUDRES

BOUGES-LE-CHATEAU Partie de commune située au Nord de la D2, puis de la D34A

BUXEUIL

FONTGUENAND Partie de commune située au Sud de la D52

GUILLY

LANGE

POULAINES Partie de commune située au Nord de D960

ROUVRES LES BOIS

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-EN-BAZELLE partie de commune située au Sud-Ouest de D25

SEMBLECAY Partie de commune située au Sud de D25

VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Nord-Ouest du Nahon

VAL-FOUZON

VEUIL

VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D956 et au Sud de la D109

26.1.2023

POULAINES Partie de commune située au Sud de la D960

VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Sud- Est du Nahon

VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Est de la D956 et au Nord de la D109

17.1.2023 – 26.1.2023

Département: Loire-Atlantique (44)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01492

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01497

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01505

CASSON

LE CELLIER

COUFFE

HERIC

JOUE-SUR-ERDRE

MESANGER

MOUZEIL

NORT-SUR-ERDRE

RIAILLE

SAFFRE

SAINT-MARS-DU-DESERT

SUCE-SUR-ERDRE

TEILLE

TRANS-SUR-ERDRE

18.1.2023

LIGNE

NORT-SUR-ERDRE

PETIT-MARS

LES TOUCHES

9.1.2023 – 18.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01466

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01591

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01592

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01609

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01616

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

2023-00015

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00009

LA PLANCHE

REMOUILLE

MONTBERT

AIGREFEUILLE

SAINT LUMINE DE CLISSON

LA CHEVROLIERE

CORCOUE SUR LORGNE

GENESTON

LA LIMOUZINIERE

MACHECOUL SAINT MEME

LA MARNE

SAINT MARS DE COUTAIS

PAULX

SAINT COLOMBAN

SAINT PHILBERT DE GRAND LIEU

SAINT ETIENNE DE MER MORTE

SAINT HILAIRE DE CLISSON

6.2.2023

VIEILLEVIGNE

CORCOUE SUR LORGNE

LEGE

SAINT LUMINE DE COUTAIS

SAINT PHILBERT DE GRAND LIEU

LA LIMOUZINIERE

PAULX

TOUVOIS

29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498

Bégrolles-en-Mauges

Chanteloup-les-Bois

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Cholet

Cléré-sur-Layon

La Plaine

La Séguinière

La Tessouale

Le May-sur-Evre

Le Puy-Saint-Bonnet

Les Cerqueux-sous-Passavant

Nueil-sur-Layon

En entier

En entier

Chaudron-en-Mauges

La Boissière-sur-Evre

La Chaussaire

La Salle-et-Chapelle-Aubry

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Nuaillé

Passavant-sur-Layon

Saint-Christophe-du-Bois

Saint-Léger-sous-Cholet

Le Longeron

Saint-Crespin-sur-Moine

Saint-Germain-sur-Moine

Tillières

Somloire

Toutlemonde

Trémentines

27.1.2023

Andrezé

Beaupréau

Gesté

Jallais

La Chapelle-du-Genêt

La Jubaudière

La Poitevinière

Le Pin-en-Mauges

Saint-Philbert-en-Mauges

Villedieu-la-Blouère

La Romagne

Le Fief-Sauvin

La Renaudière

Montfaucon-Montigné

Roussay

Saint-André-de-la-Marche

Saint-Macaire-en-Mauges

19.1.2023 – 27.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01504

LA BOISSIERE-DU-DORE

LA REGRIPPIERE

LA REMAUDIERE

2.2.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01554

CLISSON

GORGES

MOUZILLON

SAINT HILAIRE DE CLISSON

VALLETS

7.2.2023

BOUSSAY

GETIGNE

19.1.2023 – 7.2.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00010

RIAILLE

BONNEUVRE

PANNECE

TEILLE

TRANS SUR ERDRE

MOUZEIL

LIGNE

COUFFE

OUDON

ANCENIS SAINT GEREON

VAIR SUR LOIRE

LA ROCHE BLANCHE

POUILLE LES COTEAUX

5.2.2023

MESANGER

TEILLE

27.1.2023 – 5.2.2023

Departement: Maine-et-Loire (49)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01457

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01471

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01472

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01483

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01485

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01486

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01487

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01489

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01496

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01498

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01506

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01511

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01512

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01516

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01518

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01519

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01524

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01458

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01467

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01535

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01545

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01547

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01549

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01548

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01564

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01571

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01573

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01578

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01579

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01580

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01586

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01594

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01603

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00016

Bégrolles-en-Mauges

Chanteloup-les-Bois

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Chemillé-en-Anjou

Cholet

Cléré-sur-Layon

La Plaine

La Séguinière

La Tessouale

Le May-sur-Evre

Le Puy-Saint-Bonnet

Les Cerqueux-sous-Passavant

Nueil-sur-Layon

En entier

En entier

Chaudron-en-Mauges

La Boissière-sur-Evre

La Chaussaire

La Salle-et-Chapelle-Aubry

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Montrevault-sur-Evre

Nuaillé

Passavant-sur-Layon

Saint-Christophe-du-Bois

Saint-Léger-sous-Cholet

Le Longeron

Saint-Crespin-sur-Moine

Saint-Germain-sur-Moine

Tillières

Somloire

Toutlemonde

Trémentines

8.2.2023

ANDREZÉ

BEAUPRÉAU

GESTÉ

JALLAIS

LA CHAPELLE-DU-GENÊT

LA JUBAUDIÈRE

LA POITEVINIÈRE

LE PIN-EN-MAUGES

SAINT-PHILBERT-EN-MAUGES

VILLEDIEU-LA-BLOUÈRE

LA ROMAGNE

LE FIEF-SAUVIN

LA RENAUDIÈRE

MONTFAUCON-MONTIGNÉ

ROUSSAY

SAINT-ANDRÉ-DE-LA-MARCHE

SAINT-MACAIRE-EN-MAUGES

TORFOU

31.1.2023 – 8.2.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01606

BOUILLE MENARD

CHAZE SUR ARGOS

GENE

VERN D ANJOU

LION D’ANGERS

AVIRE

LE BOURG D’IRE

LA CHAPELLE SUR OUDON

CHATELAIS

LA FERRIERE DE FLEE

L"HOTELLERIE DE FLEE

LOUVAINES

MARANS

MONTGUILLON

NOYANT LA GRAVOYERE

NYOISEAU

SAINTE GEMMES D’ANDIGNE

SAINT MARTIN DU BOIS

SAINT SAUVEUR DE FLEE

25.1.2023

LOUVAINES

NYOISEAU

SEGRE’

17.1.2023 – 25.1.2023

Departement: Manche (50)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2022-00420

AUMEVILLE LESTRE

BRILLEVAST

BRIX

CHERBOURG EN COTENTIN

COLOMBY

CRASVILLE

DIGOSVILLE

ECAUSSEVILLE

EMONDEVILLE

EROUDEVILLE

FLOTTEMANVILLE

FONTENAY SUR MER

FRESVILLE

GOLLEVILLE

GONNEVILLE LE THEIL

HAUTTEVILLE BOCAGE

HEMEVEZ

HUBERVILLE

JOGANVILLE

L’ETANG BERTRAND

LE HAM

LE MESNIL AU VAL

LE VAST

LESTRE

LIEUSAINT

MAGNEVILLE

MONTAIGU LA BRISETTE

MONTEBOURG

MORSALINES

MORVILLE

NEGREVILLE

OCTEVILLE L’AVENEL

ORGLANDES

OZEVILLE

QUETTEHOU

QUINEVILLE

ROCHEVILLE

SAINT CYR

SAINT FLOXEL

SAINT GERMAIN DE TOURNEBUT

SAINT JOSEPH

SAINT MARTIN D’AUDOUVILLE

SAUSSEMESNIL

SORTOSVILLE

SOTTEVAST

TEMERVILLE

TEURTHEVILLE BOCAGE

URVILLE

VALOGNES

VAUDREVILLE

VIDECOSVILLE

YVETOT BOCAGE

28.1.2023

HUBERVILLE

MONTAIGU LA BRISETTE

SAINT CYR

SAINT GERMAIN DE TOURNEBUT

SAUSSEMESNIL

TAMERVILLE

VALOGNES

20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023

Departement: Morbihan (56)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01422

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01435

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01443

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01444

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01445

BIGNAN – Commune entière

BILLIO – Commune entière

BULEON – Commune entière

CREDIN – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D11 jusqu’à Bellevue puis au sud de la route allant de Bellevue à Le Pont du redressement

CRUGUEL – Commune entière

GUEGON -Partie de la commune au sud de la N24

GUEHENNO – Commune entière

EVELLYS – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D767 jusqu’à Siviac puis au nord-ouest de la route allant à Naizin puis au nord de la D203

JOSSELIN – Commune entière

KERFOURN – Partie de la commmune au sud de la route allant de Le Guéric à Le Lindreu

LA CROIX HELLEAN – Commune entière

LANOUEE – Partie de la commune à l’est de la rivière de l’Oust jusqu’à Pomeleuc puis au nord de la D155 jusqu’à la Ville Hervieux puis au nord de la 764 jusqu’à la N24

LANTILLAC – Commune entière

LES FORGES – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D778

LOCMINE – Commune entière

MOREAC – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Legal puis au sud de la D181 jusqu’à Keranna puis au sud de la route allant de Keranna à Kervalo en passant par Le Petit Kerimars, Bolcalpère et le Faouët d’En Haut

MOUSTOIR-AC – Partie de la commune au nord de la route allant de Plumelin à Moustoir-Ac puis au nord de la D318 et à l’ouest de la D767

PLEUGRIFFET – Commune entière

PLUMELIAU-BIEUZY – Partie de la commune au sud de la D203 et à l’est de la route allant du bourg à Talhouet Avalec en passant par Kerjegu et Beau Soleil

PLUMELIN – Partie de la commune au nord de la D117 jusqu’à Kerfourchec puis à l’est de la route allant à Moustoir-Ac

RADENAC – Commune entière

REGUINY – Partie de la commune au nord de la D203 jusqu’à Le Pont Saint Fiacre

SAINT-ALLOUESTRE – Commune entière

17.1.2023

EVELLYS -Partie de la commune à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Siviac puis à l’est de la route allant à Naizin puis au sud de la D203

MOREAC – Partie de la commune à l’est de la D767 jusqu’à Porh Legal puis au nord de la D181 jusqu’à Keranna puis au nord de la route allant de Keranna à Kervalo en passant par Le Petit Kerimars, Bolcalpère et le Faouët d’En Haut

REGUINY – Partie de la commune au sud de la D203 jusqu’à Le Pont Saint Fiacre

RADENAC -Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la D11

BULEON – Partie de la commune au nord de la N24

GUEGON – Partie de la commune au nord de la N24

LANOUEE – Partie de la commune à l’ouest de la rivière de l’Oust jusqu’à Pomeleuc puis au sud de la D155 jusqu’à la Ville Hervieux puis au sud de la 764 jusqu’à la N24

LANTILLAC – Commune entière

PLEUGRIFFET – Partie de la commune au sud de la D117

9.1.2023 – 17.1.2023

Département: Nord (59)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01434

ALLENES-LES-MARAIS

ANNOEULLIN

BAILLEUL

BAUVIN

BEAUCAMPS-LIGNY

BOIS-GRENIER

DON

ERQUINGHEM-LE-SEC

ERQUINGHEM-LYS

ESCOBECQUES

FOURNES-EN-WEPPES

FROMELLES

HALLENNE-LES-HAUBOURDIN

HANTAY

LA BASSEE

LA GORGUE

LE MAISNIL

MARQUILLIES

MERRIS

MERVILLE

METEREN

NIEPPE

PROVIN

RADINGHEM-EN-WEPPES

SAINGHIN-EN-WEPPES

SALOME

STRAZEELE

VIEUX-BERQUIN

WAVRIN

WICRES

17.1.2023

NEUF-BERQUIN

STEENWERCK

ESTAIRES

LE DOULIEU

AUBERS

HERLIES

ILLIES

9.1.2023 – 17.1.2023

Département: Puy-de-Dôme (63)

FR-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-00005

FERNOEL

GIAT

VERNEUGHEOL

17.2.2023

Département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01598

ALLIER

ANGOS

ANTIST

ARTIGUEMY

AUBAREDE

AUREILHAN

BARBAZAN-DEBAT

BARBAZAN-DESSUS

BEGOLE

BERNAC-DEBAT

BERNAC-DESSUS

BERNADETS-DESSUS

BONNEFONT

BONNEMAZON

BOULIN

BUGARD

BURG

CABANAC

CAHARET

CALAVANTE

CASTELVIEILH

CASTERA-LANUSSE

CASTILLON

CHELLE-SPOU

CIEUTAT

CLARAC

COUSSAN

FRECHOU-FRECHET

GONEZ

GOUDON

GOURGUE

HITTE

HOURC

LANESPEDE

LANSAC

LASLADES

LESPOUEY

LIZOS

LUC

LUTILHOUS

MARQUERIE

MAUVEZIN

MERILHEU

MONTASTRUC

MONTGAILLARD

MONTIGNAC

MOULEDOUS

ORIEUX

ORIGNAC

PERE

PEYRIGUERE

POUYASTRUC

RICAUD

SALLES-ADOUR

SARROUILLES

SEMEAC

SERE-RUSTAING

SOUES

SOUYEAUX

THUY

VIELLE-ADOUR

23.1.2023

BORDES

LHEZ

MASCARAS

OLEAC-DESSUS

OUEILLOUX

OZON

PEYRAUBE

POUMAROUS

SINZOS

TOURNAY

15.1.2023 – 23.1.2023

Département: Rhône (69)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01597

ANCY

BAGNOLS

BELMONT-D’AZERGUES

BESSENAY

BIBOST

BULLY

EVEUX

BRULLIOLES

BRUSSIEU

BULLY

CHARNAY

CHATILLON

CHAZAY-D’AZERGUES

CHESSY

CHEVINAY

CIVRIEUX-D’AZERGUES

COURZIEU

DAREIZE

DOMMARTIN

EVEUX

FLEURIEUX-SUR-L’ARBRESLE

GREZIEU-LA-VARENNE

LEGNY

LENTILLY

LOZANNE

MARCY-L’ETOILE

MONTROTTIER

MORANCE

LES OLMES

POLLIONNAY

PONTCHARRA-SUR-TURDINE

SARCEY

SOURCIEUX-LES-MINES

SAINTE-CONSORCE

SAINT-FORGEUX

SAINT-GERMAIN-NUELLES

SAINT-JEAN-DES-VIGNES

SAINT-JULIEN-SUR-BIBOST

SAINT-LOUP

SAINT-PIERRE-LA-PALUD

SAINT-ROMAIN-DE-POPEY

SAINT-VERAND

LA TOUR-DE-SALVAGNY

VAUGNERAY

27.1.2023

L’ARBRESLE

SAIN BEL

SAVIGNY

19.1.2023 – 27.1.2023

Département: Sarthe (72)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01584

ASSE LE RIBOUL

BALLON SAINT MARS

BEAUMONT SUR SARTHE

CHERANCE

CONGE-SUR-ORNE

COURGAINS

DANGEUL

FRESNAY-SUR-SARTHE

GRANDCHAMP

JUILLE

LOUVIGNY

LUCE-SOUS-BALLON

MARESCHE

MAROLLES-LES-BRAULTS

LES MEES

MEZIERE-SOUS-PONTHOUIN

MOITRON-SUR-SARTHE

MONHOUDOU

MONTBIZOT

PIACE

RENE

ROUESSE-FONTAINE

SAINT-AIGNAN

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-JAMBET

SAINT-MARCEAU

SAOSNES

TEILLE

THOIGNE

THOIREE-SOUS-CONTENSOR

VIVOIN

18.1.2023

CHERANCE

DANGEUL

DOUCELLES

MEURCE

NOUANS

RENE

VIVOIN

9.1.2023 – 18.1.2023

Département: Deux-Sèvres (79)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01411

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01415

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01414

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01417

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01430

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01436

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01428

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01447

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01448

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01477

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01450

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01475

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01474

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01482

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01484

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01473

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01502

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01504

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01515

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01499

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01521

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01522

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01532

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01544

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01541

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01538

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01534

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01569

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01587

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01588

ADILLY

AMAILLOUX

ARDIN

ARGENTON-L’EGLISE

BECELEUF

LE BEUGNON

BOUILLE-LORETZ

LA CHAPELLE-THIREUIL

CHICHE

CLESSÉ

COULONGES-SUR-L’AUTIZE

COULONGES-THOUARSAIS

FAYE-L’ABESSE

FÉNERY

FENIOUX

LA FORÊT-SUR-SÈVRE

GEAY

LUCHE-THOUARSAIS

MAUZE-THOUARSAIS

MONCOUTANT

MOUTIERS-SOUS-CHANTEMERLE

POUGNE-HÉRISSON

PUIHARDY

SAINT-AUBIN-LE-CLOUD

SAINT-GERMAIN-DE-LONGUE-CHAUME

SAINT-JOUIN-DE-MILLY

SAINT-LAURS

SAINT-MAIXENT-DE-BEUGNE

SAINT-MAURICE-ETUSSON

SAINT-POMPAIN

SCILLÉ

SECONDIGNY

VILLIERS-EN-PLAINE

VOULMENTIN

28.1.2023

L’ABSIE

ARGENTONNAY

BOISME

BRESSUIRE

BRETIGNOLLES

LE BREUIL-BERNARD

LE BUSSEAU

CERIZAY

CHANTELOUP

LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-ETIENNE

LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-LAURENT

CIRIERES

COMBRAND

COURLAY

GENNETON

LARGEASSE

MAULEON

MONTRAVERS

NEUVY-BOUIN

NUEIL-LES-AUBIERS

LA PETITE-BOISSIERE

LE PIN

PUGNY

SAINT-AMAND-SUR-SEVRE

SAINT-ANDRE-SUR-SEVRE

SAINT-AUBIN-DU-PLAIN

SAINT-PAUL-EN-GATINE

SAINT PIERRE DES ECHAUBROGNES

TRAYES

VAL-EN-VIGNES

VERNOUX-EN-GATINE

20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01449

CHANTECORPS

CLAVE

COUTIERES

EXIREUIL

FOMPERRON

LES FORGES

NANTEUIL

PAMPROUX

REFFANNES

SAINT-GERMIER

SAINT-MARTIN-DU-FOUILLOUX

SOUDAN

VAUSSEROUX

VAUTEBIS

29.2.2023

MENIGOUTE

VASLES

20.1.2023 –29.2.2023

Département: Vendée (85)

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01424

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01426

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01438

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01440

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01441

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01442

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01446

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01451

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01454

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01455

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01456

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01459

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01460

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01461

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01462

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01463

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01464

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01469

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01470

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01478

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01479

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01488

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01490

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01491

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01493

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01494

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01495

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01500

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01503

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01507

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01508

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01509

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01510

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01513

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01514

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01520

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01525

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01527

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01528

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01529

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01530

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01531

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01533

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01537

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01539

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01540

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01542

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01543

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01546

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01551

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01552

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01553

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01555

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01556

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01557

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01583

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01585

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01589

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01590

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01593

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01595

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01596

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01599

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01600

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01601

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01602

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01604

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01607

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01608

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01610

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01611

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01613

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01614

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01615

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01618

FR-HPAI(P)-2022-01620

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00005

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

SAINT HILAIRE DES LOGES au sud de la D745

FOUSSAIS PAYRE a l’ouest de la D49

FAYMOREAU

MARILLET

ANTIGNY

BOURNEAU

CEZAIS

FONTENAY-LE-COMTE

L’ORBRIE

LA CHATAIGNERAIE

LA TARDIERE

LOGE-FOUGEREUSE

MARSAIS-SAINTE-RADEGONDE

SAINT-MARTIN-DE-FRAIGNEAU

SAINT-MAURICE-DES-NOUES

SAINT-PIERRE-DU-CHEMIN

SERIGNE

PISSOTTE

MARVENT

NIEUL-SUR-L’AUTISTE

PUY-DE-SERRE

SAINT-HILAIRE-DE-VOUST

VOUVANT

SAINT-MICHEL-LE-CLOUCQ

XANTON-CHASSENON

SAINT HILAIRE DES LOGES au nord de la D745

FOUSSAIS PAYRE à l’est de la D49

BREUIL-BARRET

LA CHAPELLE-AUX-LYS

LOGE-FOUGEREUSE

SAINT-HILAIRE-DE-VOUST

BAZOGES-EN-PAILLERS

BEAUREPAIRE

BESSAY

BOURNEZEAU au nord de la D948 et de la D949B

CHAILLE-LES-MARAIS

CHAMPAGNE-LES-MARAIS

CHANTONNAY à l’ouest de la D137

CHÂTEAU-GUIBERT à l’est de la D746

CHAUCHE à l’ouest de l’A83

CHAVAGNES-EN-PAILLERS au nord de la D6

CORPE

DOMPIERRE-SUR-YON

ESSARTS EN BOCAGE

FOUGERE

LA BOISSIERE-DE-MONTAIGU au sud de la D23 et D72

LA CHAIZE-LE-VICOMTE au sud de la D948

LA COPECHAGNIERE

LA FERRIERE

LA MERLATIERE

LA RABATELIERE

LA REORTHE

LA ROCHE-SUR-YON à l’est de la D746 et D763

LES BROUZILS

LES HERBIERS au nord de la D160 et à l’ouest de la D23

LES LANDES-GENUSSON au sud de la D72 et D755

MAREUIL-SUR-LAY-DISSAIS à l’est de la D746

MESNARD-LA-BAROTIERE

MOUTIERS-SUR-LE-LAY au sud de la D19

RIVES-DE-L’YON à l’est de la D746

SAINT-ANDRE-GOULE-D’OIE au sud de l’A87

SAINTE-CECILE

SAINTE-HERMINE

SAINTE-PEXINE au sud de la D19

SAINT-FULGENT à l’est de l’A87

SAINT-GEORGES-DE-MONTAIGU

SAINT-HILAIRE-LE-VOUHIS

SAINT-JEAN-DE-BEUGNE

SAINT-JUIRE-CHAMPGILLON

SAINT-MARTIN-DES-NOYERS à l’est de la D7

THORIGNY

LES MAGNILS-REIGNIERS

LUCON

MOUZEUIL-SAINT-MARTIN

NALLIERS

PUYRAVAULT

SAINT-AUBIN-LA-PLAINE

SAINTE-GEMME-LA-PLAINE

SAINTE-RADEGONDE-DES6NOYERS

SAINTE-ETIENNE-DE6BRILLOUET

TRIAIZE

VENDRENNES

BOURNEZEAU au sud de la D498 et de la D949B

LES PINEAUX

MOUTIERS-SUR-LE-LAY

SAINTE-PEXINE au nord de la D19

SAINT-MARTIN-DES-NOYERS à l’ouest de la D7

LA CHAIZE-LE-VICOME au nord de la D948

LA FERRIERE au sud de la D160

CHAUCHE à l’est de l’A83

CHAVAGNES-EN-PAILLERS au sud de la D6

SAINT-ANDRE-GOULE-D’OIE au nord de l’A87

SAINT-FULGENT à l’ouest de l’A87

BREM-SUR-MER

BRETIGNOLLES-SUR-MER

COEX

GIVRAND

LA CHAIZE-GIRAUD

LA CHAPELLE-HERMIER

L’AIUGUILLON-SUR-VIE

LES ACHARDS

L’ILE-D’OLONNE

MARTINET

OLONNE-SUR-MER

SAINTE-FOY

SAINT-GEORGES-DES-POINTINDOUX

SAINT-JULIEN-DES-LANDES

SAINT-MATHURIN

SAINT-REVEREND

BREM-SUR-MER

LANDEVIEILLE

SAINT-JULIEN-DES-LANDES

VAIRE

2.2.2023

Département: Vienne (86)

FR-HPAI(P)-2023-00019

CURZAY SUR VONNE

JAZENEUIL

ROUILLE

SAINT SAUVANT

SANXAY

15.2.2023

Member State: Italy

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Region: Veneto |
| IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00054 | The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.355299708, E10.860377854 | 28.1.2023 |
| The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.355299708, E10.860377854 | 20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Region: Veneto

IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00054

The area of the parts of Veneto Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.355299708, E10.860377854

28.1.2023

The area of the parts of Veneto Region contained within a circle of radius of three kilometres, centred on WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.355299708, E10.860377854

20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023

Member State: Hungary

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bács-Kiskun, Békés és Csongrád-Csanád vármegye |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00211-00295
  HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00297 | Ágasegyháza, Bácsalmás, Bácsszőlős, Balotaszállás, Borota, Csengőd, Csikéria, Csólyospálos, Felsőszentiván, Fülöpjakab, Gátér, Harkakötöny, Helvécia, Imrehegy, Izsák, Jakabszállás, Jánoshalma, Jászszentlászló, Kelebia, Kéleshalom, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kiskunmajsa, Kisszállás, Kömpöc, Kunfehértó, Kunszállás, Mátételke, Mélykút, Móricgát, Orgovány, Páhi, Pálmonostora, Petőfiszállás, Tabdi, Tataháza, Tiszaalpár, Tompa, Városföld, Zsana, Békéssámson, Csanádapáca, Kardoskút, Kaszaper, Mezőhegyes, Mezőkovácsháza, Nagybánhegyes, Orosháza, Pusztaföldvár, Tótkomlós, Végegyháza, Algyő, Ambrózfalva, Árpádhalom, Baks, Balástya, Bordány, Csanytelek, Csengele, Csongrád, Derekegyház, Dóc, Domaszék, Fábiánsebestyén, Felgyő, Forráskút, Hódmezővásárhely, Kistelek, Mártély, Mindszent, Nagyér, Nagymágocs, Nagytőke, Ópusztaszer, Öttömös, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Ruzsa, Sándorfalva, Szatymaz, Szeged, Szegvár, Székkutas, Szentes, Tömörkény, Üllés, Zákányszék és Zsombó települések teljes közigazgatási területe
  Kecskemét település közigazgatási területének a 46.686318 és a 19.661755, valamint a 46.695600 és a 19.681280 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.
  Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Kaskantyú, Kiskőrös, Kiskunhalas, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tázlár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.598273 és a 19.462954 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe.
  Borota, Imrehegy és Kéleshalom települések közigazgatási területének a 46.598273 és a 19.462954 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe. | 18.1.2023 |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00296 | Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Kaskantyú, Kiskőrös, Kiskunhalas, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tázlár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.598273 és a 19.462954 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 21.1.2023 |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00002 | Borota, Császártöltés, Drágszél, Dusnok, Érsekhalma, Hajós, Homokhegy, Imrehegy, Kecel, Kéleshalom, Miske, Nemesnádudvar, Öregcsertő települések közigazgatási területének a 46.417287 és a 19.158443 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. | 5.2.2023 |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003 | Battonya, Dombegyház, Kisdombegyház, Kunágota, Magyardombegyház, Mezőhegyes és Mezőkovácsháza települések közigazgatási területének a 46.298611 és a 21.048904 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. | 12.2.2023 |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00002 | Császártöltés, Hajós és Homokhegy települések közigazgatási területeinek a 46.417287 és a 19.158443 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023 |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003 | Battonya és Dombegyház települések közigazgatási területének a 46.298611 és a 21.048904 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 4.2.2023 -12.2.2023 |
| Hajdú-Bihar vármegye |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00298
  HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00299
  HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Hajdúszoboszló, Hortobágy, Kaba, Nádudvar, Nagyhegyes és Püspökladány települések közigazgatási területének a a 47.471520 és a 21.203237, a 47.485876 és a 21.170037, valamint a 47.448133 és a 21.156837 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe. | 5.2.2023 |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00298
  HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00299
  HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 | Hajdúszoboszló és Nádudvar települések közigazgatási területének a 47.471520 és a 21.203237, a 47.485876 és a 21.170037, valamint a 47.448133 és a 21.156837 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe. | 28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023 |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Bács-Kiskun, Békés és Csongrád-Csanád vármegye

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00211-00295

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00297

Ágasegyháza, Bácsalmás, Bácsszőlős, Balotaszállás, Borota, Csengőd, Csikéria, Csólyospálos, Felsőszentiván, Fülöpjakab, Gátér, Harkakötöny, Helvécia, Imrehegy, Izsák, Jakabszállás, Jánoshalma, Jászszentlászló, Kelebia, Kéleshalom, Kiskunfélegyháza, Kiskunmajsa, Kisszállás, Kömpöc, Kunfehértó, Kunszállás, Mátételke, Mélykút, Móricgát, Orgovány, Páhi, Pálmonostora, Petőfiszállás, Tabdi, Tataháza, Tiszaalpár, Tompa, Városföld, Zsana, Békéssámson, Csanádapáca, Kardoskút, Kaszaper, Mezőhegyes, Mezőkovácsháza, Nagybánhegyes, Orosháza, Pusztaföldvár, Tótkomlós, Végegyháza, Algyő, Ambrózfalva, Árpádhalom, Baks, Balástya, Bordány, Csanytelek, Csengele, Csongrád, Derekegyház, Dóc, Domaszék, Fábiánsebestyén, Felgyő, Forráskút, Hódmezővásárhely, Kistelek, Mártély, Mindszent, Nagyér, Nagymágocs, Nagytőke, Ópusztaszer, Öttömös, Pusztamérges, Pusztaszer, Ruzsa, Sándorfalva, Szatymaz, Szeged, Szegvár, Székkutas, Szentes, Tömörkény, Üllés, Zákányszék és Zsombó települések teljes közigazgatási területe

Kecskemét település közigazgatási területének a 46.686318 és a 19.661755, valamint a 46.695600 és a 19.681280 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Kaskantyú, Kiskőrös, Kiskunhalas, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tázlár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.598273 és a 19.462954 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe.

Borota, Imrehegy és Kéleshalom települések közigazgatási területének a 46.598273 és a 19.462954 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön kívül eső teljes közigazgatási területe.

18.1.2023

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00296

Bócsa, Bugac, Bugacpusztaháza, Kaskantyú, Kiskőrös, Kiskunhalas, Pirtó, Soltvadkert, Szank, Tázlár települések közigazgatási területének a 46.598273 és a 19.462954 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

21.1.2023

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Borota, Császártöltés, Drágszél, Dusnok, Érsekhalma, Hajós, Homokhegy, Imrehegy, Kecel, Kéleshalom, Miske, Nemesnádudvar, Öregcsertő települések közigazgatási területének a 46.417287 és a 19.158443 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.

5.2.2023

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

Battonya, Dombegyház, Kisdombegyház, Kunágota, Magyardombegyház, Mezőhegyes és Mezőkovácsháza települések közigazgatási területének a 46.298611 és a 21.048904 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.

12.2.2023

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

Császártöltés, Hajós és Homokhegy települések közigazgatási területeinek a 46.417287 és a 19.158443 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

Battonya és Dombegyház települések közigazgatási területének a 46.298611 és a 21.048904 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

4.2.2023 -12.2.2023

Hajdú-Bihar vármegye

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00298

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00299

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Hajdúszoboszló, Hortobágy, Kaba, Nádudvar, Nagyhegyes és Püspökladány települések közigazgatási területének a a 47.471520 és a 21.203237, a 47.485876 és a 21.170037, valamint a 47.448133 és a 21.156837 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 10 km sugarú körön belül és védőkörzeten kívül eső területe.

5.2.2023

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00298

HU-HPAI(P)-2022-00299

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

Hajdúszoboszló és Nádudvar települések közigazgatási területének a 47.471520 és a 21.203237, a 47.485876 és a 21.170037, valamint a 47.448133 és a 21.156837 GPS-koordináták által meghatározott pont körüli 3 km sugarú körön belül eső területe.

28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023

Member State: the Netherlands

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Municipality De Ronde Venen, province Utrecht |
| | Bewakingszone (10 kilometer) Mijdrecht






  1. | via Bennebroekerweg naar Nelson Mandela Dreef |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Municipality De Ronde Venen, province Utrecht

Bewakingszone (10 kilometer) Mijdrecht

1.

via Bennebroekerweg naar Nelson Mandela Dreef

| 2. | via Nelson Mandela Dreef naar Hoofddorp-Zuid 3a |
| --- | --- |

2.

via Nelson Mandela Dreef naar Hoofddorp-Zuid 3a

| 3. | via Hoofddorp-Zuid 3a naar Hoofddorp |
| --- | --- |

3.

via Hoofddorp-Zuid 3a naar Hoofddorp

| 4. | via Hoofddorp naar Rijksweg A4 |
| --- | --- |

4.

via Hoofddorp naar Rijksweg A4

| 5. | via Rijksweg a4 naar Hoofddorp |
| --- | --- |

5.

via Rijksweg a4 naar Hoofddorp

| 6. | via Hoofddorp naar Rijksweg A4 |
| --- | --- |

6.

via Hoofddorp naar Rijksweg A4

| 7. | via Rijksweg A4 naar Schiphol 2 |
| --- | --- |

7.

via Rijksweg A4 naar Schiphol 2

| 8. | via Schiphol 2 naar Spoorbaan |
| --- | --- |

8.

via Schiphol 2 naar Spoorbaan

| 9. | via Spoorbaan naar Schiphol 2 |
| --- | --- |

9.

via Spoorbaan naar Schiphol 2

| 10. | via Schiphol 2 naar Ceintuurbaan Zuid |
| --- | --- |

10.

via Schiphol 2 naar Ceintuurbaan Zuid

| 11. | via Ceintuurbaan Zuid naar Vertrekpassage |
| --- | --- |

11.

via Ceintuurbaan Zuid naar Vertrekpassage

| 12. | via Vertrekpassage naar Spoorbaan |
| --- | --- |

12.

via Vertrekpassage naar Spoorbaan

| 13. | via Spoorbaan naar Loevesteinse Randweg |
| --- | --- |

13.

via Spoorbaan naar Loevesteinse Randweg

| 14. | via Loevesteinse Randweg naar Hugo de Grootstraat |
| --- | --- |

14.

via Loevesteinse Randweg naar Hugo de Grootstraat

| 15. | via Hugo de Grootstraat naar Schipholweg |
| --- | --- |

15.

via Hugo de Grootstraat naar Schipholweg

| 16. | via Schipholweg naar Aalsmeer 6 |
| --- | --- |

16.

via Schipholweg naar Aalsmeer 6

| 17. | via Aalsmeer 6 naar Rijksweg A9 |
| --- | --- |

17.

via Aalsmeer 6 naar Rijksweg A9

| 18. | via Rijksweg A9 naar Ringvaart van de Haarlemmermeerpolder (oostelijk deel) |
| --- | --- |

18.

via Rijksweg A9 naar Ringvaart van de Haarlemmermeerpolder (oostelijk deel)

| 19. | via Ringvaart van de Haarlemmermeerpolder (oostelijk deel) naar Schipholweg |
| --- | --- |

19.

via Ringvaart van de Haarlemmermeerpolder (oostelijk deel) naar Schipholweg

| 20. | via Schipholweg naar Schipholdijk |
| --- | --- |

20.

via Schipholweg naar Schipholdijk

| 21. | via Schipholdijk naar Nieuwe Meerlaan |
| --- | --- |

21.

via Schipholdijk naar Nieuwe Meerlaan

| 22. | via Nieuwe Meerlaan naar Bosbaanweg |
| --- | --- |

22.

via Nieuwe Meerlaan naar Bosbaanweg

| 23. | via Bosbaanweg naar van Nijenrodeweg |
| --- | --- |

23.

via Bosbaanweg naar van Nijenrodeweg

| 24. | via van Nijenrodeweg naar Buitenveldertselaan |
| --- | --- |

24.

via van Nijenrodeweg naar Buitenveldertselaan

| 25. | via Buitenveldertselaan naar Uilenstede |
| --- | --- |

25.

via Buitenveldertselaan naar Uilenstede

| 26. | via Uilenstede naar Laan van Kronenburg |
| --- | --- |

26.

via Uilenstede naar Laan van Kronenburg

| 27. | via Laan van Kronenburg naar Kalfjeslaan |
| --- | --- |

27.

via Laan van Kronenburg naar Kalfjeslaan

| 28. | via Kalfjeslaan naar Amsteldijk |
| --- | --- |

28.

via Kalfjeslaan naar Amsteldijk

| 29. | via Amsteldijk naar de Smient |
| --- | --- |

29.

via Amsteldijk naar de Smient

| 30. | via de Smient naar Ouderkerkerdijk |
| --- | --- |

30.

via de Smient naar Ouderkerkerdijk

| 31. | via Ouderkerkerdijk naar fietspad Oudekerkerdijk |
| --- | --- |

31.

via Ouderkerkerdijk naar fietspad Oudekerkerdijk

| 32. | via Fietspadoudekerkerdijk naar Machineweg |
| --- | --- |

32.

via Fietspadoudekerkerdijk naar Machineweg

| 33. | via Machineweg naar Burgemeester Stramanweg |
| --- | --- |

33.

via Machineweg naar Burgemeester Stramanweg

| 34. | via Burgemeester Stramanweg naar Holterbergweg |
| --- | --- |

34.

via Burgemeester Stramanweg naar Holterbergweg

| 35. | via Holterbergweg naar Muntbergweg |
| --- | --- |

35.

via Holterbergweg naar Muntbergweg

| 36. | via Muntbergweg naar Meibergdreef |
| --- | --- |

36.

via Muntbergweg naar Meibergdreef

| 37. | via Meibergdreef naar Tafelbergweg |
| --- | --- |

37.

via Meibergdreef naar Tafelbergweg

| 38. | via Tafelbergweg naar Abcouderstraatweg |
| --- | --- |

38.

via Tafelbergweg naar Abcouderstraatweg

| 39. | via Abcouderstraatweg naar Nieuwe Amsterdamseweg |
| --- | --- |

39.

via Abcouderstraatweg naar Nieuwe Amsterdamseweg

| 40. | via Nieuwe Amsterdamseweg naar Broekzijdselaan |
| --- | --- |

40.

via Nieuwe Amsterdamseweg naar Broekzijdselaan

| 41. | via Broekzijdselaan naar Dokter van Doornplein |
| --- | --- |

41.

via Broekzijdselaan naar Dokter van Doornplein

| 42. | via Dokter van Doornplein naar Kerkplein |
| --- | --- |

42.

via Dokter van Doornplein naar Kerkplein

| 43. | via Kerkplein naar Hoogstraat |
| --- | --- |

43.

via Kerkplein naar Hoogstraat

| 44. | via Hoogstraat naar Molenweg |
| --- | --- |

44.

via Hoogstraat naar Molenweg

| 45. | via Molenweg naar Lange Coupure |
| --- | --- |

45.

via Molenweg naar Lange Coupure

| 46. | via Lange Coupure naar Rijksstraatweg |
| --- | --- |

46.

via Lange Coupure naar Rijksstraatweg

| 47. | via Rijksstraatweg naar Provincialeweg |
| --- | --- |

47.

via Rijksstraatweg naar Provincialeweg

| 48. | via Provincialeweg naar Spoorbaan |
| --- | --- |

48.

via Provincialeweg naar Spoorbaan

| 49. | via Spoorbaan naar Polderweg |
| --- | --- |

49.

via Spoorbaan naar Polderweg

| 50. | via Polderweg naar Westkanaaldijk |
| --- | --- |

50.

via Polderweg naar Westkanaaldijk

| 51. | via Westkanaaldijk naar Ter Aaseweg |
| --- | --- |

51.

via Westkanaaldijk naar Ter Aaseweg

| 52. | via Ter Aaseweg naar Dorpsstraat |
| --- | --- |

52.

via Ter Aaseweg naar Dorpsstraat

| 53. | via Dorpsstraat naar Julianalaan |
| --- | --- |

53.

via Dorpsstraat naar Julianalaan

| 54. | via Julianalaan naar Laantje |
| --- | --- |

54.

via Julianalaan naar Laantje

| 55. | via Laantje naar Oud Aa |
| --- | --- |

55.

via Laantje naar Oud Aa

| 56. | via Oud Aa naar Provincialeweg |
| --- | --- |

56.

via Oud Aa naar Provincialeweg

| 57. | via Provincialeweg naar ir. Enschedéweg |
| --- | --- |

57.

via Provincialeweg naar ir. Enschedéweg

| 58. | via ir. Enschedéweg naar Oortjespad |
| --- | --- |

58.

via ir. Enschedéweg naar Oortjespad

| 59. | via Oortjespad naar van Teylingenweg |
| --- | --- |

59.

via Oortjespad naar van Teylingenweg

| 60. | via van Teylingenweg naar Houtkade |
| --- | --- |

60.

via van Teylingenweg naar Houtkade

| 61. | via Houtkade naar fietspad |
| --- | --- |

61.

via Houtkade naar fietspad

| 62. | via fietspad naar Grechtkade |
| --- | --- |

62.

via fietspad naar Grechtkade

| 63. | via Grechtkade naar toegang |
| --- | --- |

63.

via Grechtkade naar toegang

| 64. | via toegang naar Oude Meije |
| --- | --- |

64.

via toegang naar Oude Meije

| 65. | via Oude Meije naar Hollandsekade |
| --- | --- |

65.

via Oude Meije naar Hollandsekade

| 66. | via Hollandsekade naar Zonneveer |
| --- | --- |

66.

via Hollandsekade naar Zonneveer

| 67. | via Zonneveer naar Simon van Capelweg |
| --- | --- |

67.

via Zonneveer naar Simon van Capelweg

| 68. | via Simon van Capelweg naar Noordenseweg |
| --- | --- |

68.

via Simon van Capelweg naar Noordenseweg

| 69. | via Noordenseweg naar Nieuwveenseweg |
| --- | --- |

69.

via Noordenseweg naar Nieuwveenseweg

| 70. | via Nieuwveenseweg naar Achterweg |
| --- | --- |

70.

via Nieuwveenseweg naar Achterweg

| 71. | via Achterweg naar Kennedylaan |
| --- | --- |

71.

via Achterweg naar Kennedylaan

| 72. | via Kennedylaan naar provinciale weg |
| --- | --- |

72.

via Kennedylaan naar provinciale weg

| 73. | via provinciale weg naar Achttienkavels |
| --- | --- |

73.

via provinciale weg naar Achttienkavels

| 74. | via Achttienkavels naar Achttienkavelseweg |
| --- | --- |

74.

via Achttienkavels naar Achttienkavelseweg

| 75. | via Achttienkavelseweg naar Zevenhovenseweg |
| --- | --- |

75.

via Achttienkavelseweg naar Zevenhovenseweg

| 76. | via Zevenhovenseweg naar Kerkweg |
| --- | --- |

76.

via Zevenhovenseweg naar Kerkweg

| 77. | via Kerkweg naar Korteraarseweg |
| --- | --- |

77.

via Kerkweg naar Korteraarseweg

| 78. | via Korteraarseweg naar Oude Kerkpad |
| --- | --- |

78.

via Korteraarseweg naar Oude Kerkpad

| 79. | via Oude Kerkpad naar Oostkanaalweg |
| --- | --- |

79.

via Oude Kerkpad naar Oostkanaalweg

| 80. | via Oostkanaalweg naar Schilkerweg |
| --- | --- |

80.

via Oostkanaalweg naar Schilkerweg

| 81. | via Schilkerweg naar Westkanaalweg |
| --- | --- |

81.

via Schilkerweg naar Westkanaalweg

| 82. | via Westkanaalweg naar Sluispad |
| --- | --- |

82.

via Westkanaalweg naar Sluispad

| 83. | via Sluispad naar Bloemenstraat |
| --- | --- |

83.

via Sluispad naar Bloemenstraat

| 84. | via Bloemenstraat naar Kerkpad |
| --- | --- |

84.

via Bloemenstraat naar Kerkpad

| 85. | via Kerkpad naar de Strooplikker |
| --- | --- |

85.

via Kerkpad naar de Strooplikker

| 86. | via de Strooplikker naar Langeraarseweg |
| --- | --- |

86.

via de Strooplikker naar Langeraarseweg

| 87. | via Langeraarseweg naar Hazepad |
| --- | --- |

87.

via Langeraarseweg naar Hazepad

| 88. | via Hazepad naar van Brederodeplein |
| --- | --- |

88.

via Hazepad naar van Brederodeplein

| 89. | via van Brederodeplein naar Sportweg |
| --- | --- |

89.

via van Brederodeplein naar Sportweg

| 90. | via Sportweg naar Landerij |
| --- | --- |

90.

via Sportweg naar Landerij

| 91. | via Landerij naar Langeraarseweg |
| --- | --- |

91.

via Landerij naar Langeraarseweg

| 92. | via Langeraarseweg naar Geerweg |
| --- | --- |

92.

via Langeraarseweg naar Geerweg

| 93. | via Geerweg naar Vriezenweg |
| --- | --- |

93.

via Geerweg naar Vriezenweg

| 94. | via Vriezenweg naar Provincialeweg |
| --- | --- |

94.

via Vriezenweg naar Provincialeweg

| 95. | via Provincialeweg naar Leimuiderweg |
| --- | --- |

95.

via Provincialeweg naar Leimuiderweg

| 96. | via Leimuiderweg naar Weteringweg |
| --- | --- |

96.

via Leimuiderweg naar Weteringweg

| 97. | via Weteringweg naar Aalsmeerderweg |
| --- | --- |

97.

via Weteringweg naar Aalsmeerderweg

| 98. | via Aalsmeerderweg naar Bennebroekerweg |
| --- | --- |

98.

via Aalsmeerderweg naar Bennebroekerweg

20.1.2023

Those parts of the municipality Ronde Venen contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 4,85 lat 52,24.

12.1.2023 – 20.1.2023

Member State: Austria

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| AT-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-15 | Bezirk Braunau: | in der Gemeinde Auerbach die Katastralgemeinden Auerbach, Irnprechting; in der Gemeinde Eggelsberg die Katastralgemeinden Haimhausen, Haselreith; in der Gemeinde Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen, Gstaig, Wiesing; in der Gemeinde Franking die Katastralgemeinde Holzöster; in der Gemeinde Geretsberg die Katastralgemeinden Geretsberg, Werberg; in der Gemeinde Gilgenberg am Weilhart die Katastralgemeinden Gilgenberg, Mairhof, Ruderstallgassen; in der Gemeinde Haigermoos die Katastralgemeinde Haigermoos; in der Gemeinde Handenberg die Katastralgemeinden Adenberg, Sandthal; in der Gemeinde Kirchberg bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Sauldorf, Siegertshaft; in der Gemeinde Ostermiething die Katastralgemeinde Ernsting; in der Gemeinde Palting die Katastralgemeinde Palting; in der Gemeinde Perwang am Grabensee die Katastralgemeinden Perwang, Rudersberg; in der Gemeinde Pischelsdorf am Engelbach die Katastralgemeinden Gschwendt, Humertsham; in der Gemeinde St. Georgen am Fillmannsbach die Katastralgemeinde St. Georgen; in der Gemeinde St. Pantaleon die Katastralgemeinden St. Pantaleon, Steinwag, Wildshut; in der Gemeinde Tarsdorf die Katastralgemeinde Hofstatt; |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

AT-HPAI(NON-P)-2023-15

Bezirk Braunau:

in der Gemeinde Auerbach die Katastralgemeinden Auerbach, Irnprechting; in der Gemeinde Eggelsberg die Katastralgemeinden Haimhausen, Haselreith; in der Gemeinde Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen, Gstaig, Wiesing; in der Gemeinde Franking die Katastralgemeinde Holzöster; in der Gemeinde Geretsberg die Katastralgemeinden Geretsberg, Werberg; in der Gemeinde Gilgenberg am Weilhart die Katastralgemeinden Gilgenberg, Mairhof, Ruderstallgassen; in der Gemeinde Haigermoos die Katastralgemeinde Haigermoos; in der Gemeinde Handenberg die Katastralgemeinden Adenberg, Sandthal; in der Gemeinde Kirchberg bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Sauldorf, Siegertshaft; in der Gemeinde Ostermiething die Katastralgemeinde Ernsting; in der Gemeinde Palting die Katastralgemeinde Palting; in der Gemeinde Perwang am Grabensee die Katastralgemeinden Perwang, Rudersberg; in der Gemeinde Pischelsdorf am Engelbach die Katastralgemeinden Gschwendt, Humertsham; in der Gemeinde St. Georgen am Fillmannsbach die Katastralgemeinde St. Georgen; in der Gemeinde St. Pantaleon die Katastralgemeinden St. Pantaleon, Steinwag, Wildshut; in der Gemeinde Tarsdorf die Katastralgemeinde Hofstatt;

15.2.2023

Bezirk Salzburg-Umgebung:

| | in der Gemeinde Berndorf bei Salzburg die Katastralgemeinde Berndorf; in der Gemeinde Bürmoos die Katastralgemeinde Bürmoos; in der Gemeinde Dorfbeuern die Katastralgemeinde Dorfbeuern; in der Gemeinde Lamprechtshausen die Katastralgemeinden Arnsdorf, Lamprechtshausen, St. Alban, Schwerting; in der Gemeinde Nußdorf am Haunsberg die Katastralgemeinde Pinswag;in der Gemeinde Sankt Georgen bei Salzburg die Katastralgemeinden Holzhausen, St. Georgen; |
| --- | --- |

in der Gemeinde Berndorf bei Salzburg die Katastralgemeinde Berndorf; in der Gemeinde Bürmoos die Katastralgemeinde Bürmoos; in der Gemeinde Dorfbeuern die Katastralgemeinde Dorfbeuern; in der Gemeinde Lamprechtshausen die Katastralgemeinden Arnsdorf, Lamprechtshausen, St. Alban, Schwerting; in der Gemeinde Nußdorf am Haunsberg die Katastralgemeinde Pinswag;in der Gemeinde Sankt Georgen bei Salzburg die Katastralgemeinden Holzhausen, St. Georgen;

15.2.2023

Bezirk Braunau:

| | in der Gemeinde Eggelsberg die Katastralgemeinden Eggelsberg, Gundertshausen, Ibm; in der Gemeinde Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Aschau, Vormoosen; in der Gemeinde Franking die Katastralgemeinden Eggenham; in der Gemeinde Geretsberg die Katastralgemeinde Lehrsberg; in der Gemeinde Moosdorf die Katastralgemeinden Moosdorf, Stadl |
| --- | --- |

in der Gemeinde Eggelsberg die Katastralgemeinden Eggelsberg, Gundertshausen, Ibm; in der Gemeinde Feldkirchen bei Mattighofen die Katastralgemeinden Aschau, Vormoosen; in der Gemeinde Franking die Katastralgemeinden Eggenham; in der Gemeinde Geretsberg die Katastralgemeinde Lehrsberg; in der Gemeinde Moosdorf die Katastralgemeinden Moosdorf, Stadl

7.2.2023- 15.2.2023

Member State: Poland

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00042 | W województwie lubelskim:






  1. | Miasto Łęczna oraz część gmin: Cyców, Puchaczów, Ludwin, Łęczna w powiecie łęczyńskim, |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00042

W województwie lubelskim:

1.

Miasto Łęczna oraz część gmin: Cyców, Puchaczów, Ludwin, Łęczna w powiecie łęczyńskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Uścimów, Ostrów Lubelski w powiecie lubartowskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Uścimów, Ostrów Lubelski w powiecie lubartowskim,

| 3. | Część gminy Sosnowica w powiecie parczewskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Sosnowica w powiecie parczewskim

| 4. | Część gminy Urszulin w powiecie włodawskim |
| --- | --- |

4.

Część gminy Urszulin w powiecie włodawskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.36494/23.00283

17.1.2023

W województwie lubelskim część gmin: Ludwin, Puchaczów w powiecie łęczyńskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.36494/23.00283

9.1.2023 – 17.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00043

W województwie mazowieckim:

| 1. | Część gminy Gostynin oraz miasto Gostynin, część gminy Szczawin Kościelny w powiecie gostynińskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Gostynin oraz miasto Gostynin, część gminy Szczawin Kościelny w powiecie gostynińskim,

| 2. | Część gminy Łąck w powiecie płockim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Łąck w powiecie płockim.

W województwie łódzkim część gmin:

| 1. | Strzelce, Oporów w powiecie kutnowskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Strzelce, Oporów w powiecie kutnowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.3515/19.4839

18.1.2023

W województwie mazowieckim część gmin: Gostynin, Szczawin Kościelny w powiecie gostynińskim.

W województwie łódzkim część gminy Strzelce w powiecie kutnowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.3515/19.4839

10.1.2023 – 18.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00044

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00046

W województwie łódzkim w powiecie sieradzkim:

| 1. | W gminie Błaszki: Borysławice, Brudzew, Cienia, Chociszew, Chrzanowice, Chabierów, Gruszczyce, Grzymaczew, Grzymaczew Kolonia, Jasionna, Kąśnie, Kije-Pęczek, Kobylniki, Kołdów, Korzenica, Lubna-Jarosłaj, Łubna-Jakusy, Marianów, Mroczki Małe, Mroczki Wielkie, Nacesławice, Niedoń, Równa, Samy, Sędzimirowice, Skalmierz, Sudoły, Suliszewice, Sudoły, Wojków, Włocin, Włocin Kolonia, Wrzącą Zaborów, Żelisław, Żelisław Kolonia. |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Błaszki: Borysławice, Brudzew, Cienia, Chociszew, Chrzanowice, Chabierów, Gruszczyce, Grzymaczew, Grzymaczew Kolonia, Jasionna, Kąśnie, Kije-Pęczek, Kobylniki, Kołdów, Korzenica, Lubna-Jarosłaj, Łubna-Jakusy, Marianów, Mroczki Małe, Mroczki Wielkie, Nacesławice, Niedoń, Równa, Samy, Sędzimirowice, Skalmierz, Sudoły, Suliszewice, Sudoły, Wojków, Włocin, Włocin Kolonia, Wrzącą Zaborów, Żelisław, Żelisław Kolonia.

| 2. | W gminie Goszczanów: Chlewo, Chwalęcice, Gawłowice, Poprężniki, Poradzew, Stojanów, Świnice Kaliskie, Sulmówek, Wacławów, Waliszewice, Wilkszyce, Wójcinek. |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Goszczanów: Chlewo, Chwalęcice, Gawłowice, Poprężniki, Poradzew, Stojanów, Świnice Kaliskie, Sulmówek, Wacławów, Waliszewice, Wilkszyce, Wójcinek.

| 3. | W gminie Warta: Augustynów, Bartochów, Cielce, Czartki, Duszniki, Głaniszew, Gołuchy, Góra, Grzybki, Jakubice-Baszków, Kawęczynek, Krąków, Łabędzie, Małków, Piotrowice, Popów, Raczków, Socha, Socha Kolonia, Upuszczew, Warta na zachód od drogi 83, Witów, Zagajew, Zielęcin. |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Warta: Augustynów, Bartochów, Cielce, Czartki, Duszniki, Głaniszew, Gołuchy, Góra, Grzybki, Jakubice-Baszków, Kawęczynek, Krąków, Łabędzie, Małków, Piotrowice, Popów, Raczków, Socha, Socha Kolonia, Upuszczew, Warta na zachód od drogi 83, Witów, Zagajew, Zielęcin.

| 4. | W gminie Wróblew: Bliźniew, Dziebędów, Gaj, Inczew, Kobierzycko, Orzeł Biały, Próchna, Sędzice, Słomków Mokry, Słomków Suchy, Tubądzin, Wągłczew Kolonia, Wągłczew. |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Wróblew: Bliźniew, Dziebędów, Gaj, Inczew, Kobierzycko, Orzeł Biały, Próchna, Sędzice, Słomków Mokry, Słomków Suchy, Tubądzin, Wągłczew Kolonia, Wągłczew.

| 5. | W gminie Brąszewice: Budy, Gałki, Kamienniki, Orły, Pokrzywniak, Trzcinka. |
| --- | --- |

5.

W gminie Brąszewice: Budy, Gałki, Kamienniki, Orły, Pokrzywniak, Trzcinka.

W województwie wielkopolskim część gmin:

| 1. | Szczytniki, Koźminek w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Szczytniki, Koźminek w powiecie kaliskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.6761/18.4844

19.1.2023

W województwie łódzkim, powiat sieradzki:

| 1. | W gminie Błaszki: Adamki, Brończyn, Bukowina, Domaniew, Garbów, Gołków, Gorzałów, Gzików, Kamienna, Kamienna Kolonia, Kalinowa, Kociołki, Kwasków, Lubanów, Maciszewice, Orzeżyn, Romanów, Stok Polski, Stok Nowy, Smaszków, Zawady, Morawki, Wójcice, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Błaszki: Adamki, Brończyn, Bukowina, Domaniew, Garbów, Gołków, Gorzałów, Gzików, Kamienna, Kamienna Kolonia, Kalinowa, Kociołki, Kwasków, Lubanów, Maciszewice, Orzeżyn, Romanów, Stok Polski, Stok Nowy, Smaszków, Zawady, Morawki, Wójcice,

| 2. | W gminie Warta: Gać Warcka |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Warta: Gać Warcka

W województwie wielkopolskim, powiat kaliski:

| 2. | W części gmin: Brzeziny, Szczytniki |
| --- | --- |

2.

W części gmin: Brzeziny, Szczytniki

zawierających się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.6761/18.4844

11.1.2023 – 19.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00045

W województwie warmińsko – mazurskim:

| 1. | Część gmin Zalewo, Iława w powiecie iławskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin Zalewo, Iława w powiecie iławskim,

| 2. | Część gmin Miłomłyn, Małdyty w powiecie ostródzkim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin Miłomłyn, Małdyty w powiecie ostródzkim

W województwie pomorskim część gminy Stary Dzierzgoń w powiecie sztumskim

Zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 53.80560/19.64087

19.1.2023

W województwie warmińsko – mazurskim część gminy Zalewo w powiecie iławskim zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 53.80560/19.64087

11.1.2023 – 19.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00047

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Ostrzeszów, Mikstat, miasto Mikstat, Grabów n/Prosną w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Ostrzeszów, Mikstat, miasto Mikstat, Grabów n/Prosną w powiecie ostrzeszowskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Przygodzice, Ostrów Wielkopolski, Sieroszowice w powiecie ostrowskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Przygodzice, Ostrów Wielkopolski, Sieroszowice w powiecie ostrowskim,

| 3. | Część gminy Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim
  zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.54409/17.99438 |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.54409/17.99438

21.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gminy: Mikstat, miasto Mikstat w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy: Mikstat, miasto Mikstat w powiecie ostrzeszowskim,

| 2. | Część gminy: Sieroszowice w powiecie ostrowskim
  zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.54409/17.99438 |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy: Sieroszowice w powiecie ostrowskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.54409/17.99438

13.1.2023 – 21.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00048

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Rokiciny, Będków, Ujazd w powiecie tomaszowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Rokiciny, Będków, Ujazd w powiecie tomaszowskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Brójce, Koluszki, Andrespol, Tuszyn w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Brójce, Koluszki, Andrespol, Tuszyn w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim,

| 3. | Część gmin: Czarnocin, Moszczenica, Wolbórz w powiecie piotrkowskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gmin: Czarnocin, Moszczenica, Wolbórz w powiecie piotrkowskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.63575/19.74504

21.1.2023

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Rokiciny, Będków w powiecie tomaszowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Rokiciny, Będków w powiecie tomaszowskim,

| 2. | Część gminy Brójce w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Brójce w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim,

| 3. | Część gminy Czarnocin w powiecie piotrkowskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Czarnocin w powiecie piotrkowskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.63575/19.74504

13.1.2023 – 21.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00049

W województwie mazowieckim:

| 1. | Cześć gmin: Łosice, Platerów, Olszanki, Stara Kornica, Huszlew, Sarnaki, część miasta Łosice w powiecie łosickim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cześć gmin: Łosice, Platerów, Olszanki, Stara Kornica, Huszlew, Sarnaki, część miasta Łosice w powiecie łosickim,

| 2. | Cześć gmin: Przesmyki, Mordy w powiecie siedleckim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cześć gmin: Przesmyki, Mordy w powiecie siedleckim

Zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.24032/22.74160

21.1.2023

W województwie mazowieckim:

| 1. | Cześć gminy Łosice w powiecie łosickim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cześć gminy Łosice w powiecie łosickim,

| 2. | Cześć gmin: Przesmyki w powiecie siedleckim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cześć gmin: Przesmyki w powiecie siedleckim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.24032/22.74160

13.1.2023 – 21.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00050

W województwie wielkopolskim

| 1. | Część gmin: Brzeziny i Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Brzeziny i Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim

| 2. | Część gmin: Sieroszewice, Mikstat, Ostrzeszów, Grabów nad Prosną, Doruchów, Czajków, Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Sieroszewice, Mikstat, Ostrzeszów, Grabów nad Prosną, Doruchów, Czajków, Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

| 3. | Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim

W województwie łódzkim część gminy Galewice w powiecie wieruszowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.51032/18.06508

23.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim

| 1. | Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim

| 2. | Część gmin: Grabów n/Prosną, Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Grabów n/Prosną, Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.51032/18.06508

15.1.2023 – 23.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00051

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00054

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Części gminy: Brzeziny, Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Części gminy: Brzeziny, Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim

| 2. | Części gmin: Mikstat, Ostrzeszów, Grabów nad Prosną, Doruchów, Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Części gmin: Mikstat, Ostrzeszów, Grabów nad Prosną, Doruchów, Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim

| 3. | Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.510/18.065

24.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Części gmin: Grabów nad Prosną, Mikstat w powiecie ostrzeszowskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Części gmin: Grabów nad Prosną, Mikstat w powiecie ostrzeszowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.510/18.065

16.1.2023 – 24.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00052

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00053

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00060

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00061

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00067

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00069

W województwie łódzkim powiat łaski:

| 1. | W gminie Łask (gm. miejska): Łask, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Łask (gm. miejska): Łask,

| 2. | W gminie Łask (gm. wiejska): Anielin, Budy Stryjewskie, Gorczyn, Karszew, Krzucz, Łopatki, Mauryca, Orchów, Ostrów, Remiszew, Stryje Księże, Stryje Paskowe, Teodory, Wiewiórczyn, Wola Łaska, Wola Stryjewska, Wronowice, Wrzeszczewice, Wrzeszczewice Nowe, Wrzeszczewice Skrejnia, Wydrzyn, |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Łask (gm. wiejska): Anielin, Budy Stryjewskie, Gorczyn, Karszew, Krzucz, Łopatki, Mauryca, Orchów, Ostrów, Remiszew, Stryje Księże, Stryje Paskowe, Teodory, Wiewiórczyn, Wola Łaska, Wola Stryjewska, Wronowice, Wrzeszczewice, Wrzeszczewice Nowe, Wrzeszczewice Skrejnia, Wydrzyn,

| 3. | W gminie Buczek: Brodnia Dolna, Brodnia Górna, Buczek, Czestków A, Czestków B, Czestków F, Dąbrowa, Gucin, Kowalew, Luciejów, Sycanów, Wola Buczkowska; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Buczek: Brodnia Dolna, Brodnia Górna, Buczek, Czestków A, Czestków B, Czestków F, Dąbrowa, Gucin, Kowalew, Luciejów, Sycanów, Wola Buczkowska;

| 4. | W gminie Sędziejowice: Brody Emilianów, Brzeski, Grabia, Grabica, Grabno, Kamostek, Kolonia Sędziejowice, Korczyska, Kozuby Stare i Nowe, Lichawa, Osiny, Podule, Sędziejowice, Sobiepany, Wola Wężykowa, Żagliny; |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Sędziejowice: Brody Emilianów, Brzeski, Grabia, Grabica, Grabno, Kamostek, Kolonia Sędziejowice, Korczyska, Kozuby Stare i Nowe, Lichawa, Osiny, Podule, Sędziejowice, Sobiepany, Wola Wężykowa, Żagliny;

| 5. | W gminie Wodzierady: Elodia, Kiki, Przyrownica, Piorunów, Magnusy, Wrząsawa, Dobruchów, Leśnica; |
| --- | --- |

5.

W gminie Wodzierady: Elodia, Kiki, Przyrownica, Piorunów, Magnusy, Wrząsawa, Dobruchów, Leśnica;

| 6. | W gminie Widawa: Górki Grabieńskie, Ligota; |
| --- | --- |

6.

W gminie Widawa: Górki Grabieńskie, Ligota;

W województwie łódzkim powiat powiat zduńskowolski:

| 1. | W gminie Zduńska Wola (gm. wiejska): Annopole Stare, Laskowiec, Mostki, Ogrodzisko, Piaski, Polków, Poręby, Zamłynie, Zborowskie; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Zduńska Wola (gm. wiejska): Annopole Stare, Laskowiec, Mostki, Ogrodzisko, Piaski, Polków, Poręby, Zamłynie, Zborowskie;

| 2. | W gminie Zapolice: Beleń, Branica, Holendry, Jelno, Kalinowa, Marcelów, Młodawin Górny i Dolny, Paprotnia, Pstrokonie, Ptaszkowice, Rembieszów, Rojków, Strońsko, Świerzyny, Zapolice, Rembieszów Kolonia, Woźniki, Zamoście; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Zapolice: Beleń, Branica, Holendry, Jelno, Kalinowa, Marcelów, Młodawin Górny i Dolny, Paprotnia, Pstrokonie, Ptaszkowice, Rembieszów, Rojków, Strońsko, Świerzyny, Zapolice, Rembieszów Kolonia, Woźniki, Zamoście;

| 3. | W gminie Szadek (gminie wiejska): Boczki, Dziadkowice, Kolonia Góry Prusinowskie, Piaski, Przatów, Reduchów, Sikucin, Borki Prusinowskie, Choszczewo, Tarnówka, Wola Krokocka, Wilamów, Lichawa, Wola Łobudzka, Krokocice, Łobudzice, Rzepiszew, Przatów Górny, Górna Wola; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Szadek (gminie wiejska): Boczki, Dziadkowice, Kolonia Góry Prusinowskie, Piaski, Przatów, Reduchów, Sikucin, Borki Prusinowskie, Choszczewo, Tarnówka, Wola Krokocka, Wilamów, Lichawa, Wola Łobudzka, Krokocice, Łobudzice, Rzepiszew, Przatów Górny, Górna Wola;

W województwie łódzkim powiat sieradzki:

| 1. | W gminie Warta (gminie wiejska): Lipiny, Lipiny Kolonia, Miedźno, Mogilno Rossoszyca, Rożdżały, Miedze; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Warta (gminie wiejska): Lipiny, Lipiny Kolonia, Miedźno, Mogilno Rossoszyca, Rożdżały, Miedze;

| 2. | W gminie Sieradz (gm. miejska): Obręb 26, Obręb 27, Obręb 28, Obręb 29, Obręb 30, Obręb 31, Obręb 32, Obręb 33, Obręb 34 (wschodnia część miasta Sieradz ograniczona od wschodu parkiem miejskim przy stadionie); |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Sieradz (gm. miejska): Obręb 26, Obręb 27, Obręb 28, Obręb 29, Obręb 30, Obręb 31, Obręb 32, Obręb 33, Obręb 34 (wschodnia część miasta Sieradz ograniczona od wschodu parkiem miejskim przy stadionie);

| 3. | W gminie Sieradz: Chałupki, Czartki, Męcka Wola, Podłężyce-Rzechta, Ruda, Rzechta, Stawiszcze, Woźniki; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Sieradz: Chałupki, Czartki, Męcka Wola, Podłężyce-Rzechta, Ruda, Rzechta, Stawiszcze, Woźniki;

W województwie łódzkim powiat pabianicki:

| 1. | W gminie Dobroń: Barycz, Poleszyn; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Dobroń: Barycz, Poleszyn;

W województwie łódzkim powiat poddębicki:

| 1. | W gminie Zadzim: Ralewice, Rzeczyca, Bąki, Bogucice, Chodaki, Dzierzązna Szlachecka, Górki Zadzimskie, Kłoniszew, Małyń, Marcinów, Otok, PGR Zalesie, Pietrachy, Stefanów, Wola Zaleska, Zadzim-Kazimierzew, Zygry, Dąbrówka Szadkowska, Budy Jeżewskie, Zaborów, Stefanów, Głogowiec, Maksymilianów, Nowy Świat, Sikory |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Zadzim: Ralewice, Rzeczyca, Bąki, Bogucice, Chodaki, Dzierzązna Szlachecka, Górki Zadzimskie, Kłoniszew, Małyń, Marcinów, Otok, PGR Zalesie, Pietrachy, Stefanów, Wola Zaleska, Zadzim-Kazimierzew, Zygry, Dąbrówka Szadkowska, Budy Jeżewskie, Zaborów, Stefanów, Głogowiec, Maksymilianów, Nowy Świat, Sikory

31.1.2023

W województwie łódzkim powiat zduńskowolski:

| 1. | w gminie Sędziejowice: Bilew, Dobra, Kustrzyce, Marzenin, Niecenia, Pruszków, Rososza, Wola Marzeńska, Wrzesiny; |
| --- | --- |

1.

w gminie Sędziejowice: Bilew, Dobra, Kustrzyce, Marzenin, Niecenia, Pruszków, Rososza, Wola Marzeńska, Wrzesiny;

W województwie łódzkim powiat łaski:

| 1. | w gminie Łask – obszar wiejski: Bałucz, Kolonia Bałucz, Młynisko, Borszewice, Grabina, Kolonia Bilew, Kopyść, Mikołajówek, Okup Mały, Okup Wielki, Ulejów, Wincentów, Sięganów, Wola Bałucka, Zielęcice; |
| --- | --- |

1.

w gminie Łask – obszar wiejski: Bałucz, Kolonia Bałucz, Młynisko, Borszewice, Grabina, Kolonia Bilew, Kopyść, Mikołajówek, Okup Mały, Okup Wielki, Ulejów, Wincentów, Sięganów, Wola Bałucka, Zielęcice;

| 2. | w gminie Zduńska Wola: Zduńska Wola, Annopole Nowe, Biały Ług, Czechy, Gajewniki, Gajewniki Kolonia, Henryków, Izabelów, Janiszewice, Karsznice, Kłady, Korczew, Krobanów, Michałów, Ochraniew, Opiesin, Pratków, Rębieskie Nowe, Rębieskie Stare, Suchoczasy, Tymienice, Wojsławice, Wólka Wojsławska, Wymysłów, Izabelów Mały, Andrzejów, Krobanówek, Ostrówek; |
| --- | --- |

2.

w gminie Zduńska Wola: Zduńska Wola, Annopole Nowe, Biały Ług, Czechy, Gajewniki, Gajewniki Kolonia, Henryków, Izabelów, Janiszewice, Karsznice, Kłady, Korczew, Krobanów, Michałów, Ochraniew, Opiesin, Pratków, Rębieskie Nowe, Rębieskie Stare, Suchoczasy, Tymienice, Wojsławice, Wólka Wojsławska, Wymysłów, Izabelów Mały, Andrzejów, Krobanówek, Ostrówek;

| 3. | w gminie Zapolice: Swędzieniejewice, Swędzieniejewice Kolonia, Wygiełzów; |
| --- | --- |

3.

w gminie Zapolice: Swędzieniejewice, Swędzieniejewice Kolonia, Wygiełzów;

| 4. | w gminie Szadek – obszar wiejski: Kotlinki, Kotliny, Kromolin Stary, Kromolin Nowy, Wielka Wieś; |
| --- | --- |

4.

w gminie Szadek – obszar wiejski: Kotlinki, Kotliny, Kromolin Stary, Kromolin Nowy, Wielka Wieś;

| 5. | gmina Szadek (gm. miejska): Szadek; |
| --- | --- |

5.

gmina Szadek (gm. miejska): Szadek;

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.56326/19.03881

23.1.2023 – 31.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00055

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00056

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00002

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

W województwie pomorskim w powiecie człuchowskim:

| 1. | gmina Debrzno: Boboszewo, Bolesławowo, Cierznie, Debrzno, Gniewno, Główna, Jakubowo, Jeleniec, Kostrzyca, Krzepiszyn, Miłachowo, Myśligoszcz, Myśligoszcz Wybudowanie, Nierybie, Pokrzywy, Prusinowo Wybudowanie, Pędziszewo, Przypólsko, Rozdoły, Rozwory, Skowarnki, Słupia, Służewo, Smug, Stanisławka, Strzeszyn, Uniechówek, Uniechów, Uniechów Wybudowanie. |
| --- | --- |

1.

gmina Debrzno: Boboszewo, Bolesławowo, Cierznie, Debrzno, Gniewno, Główna, Jakubowo, Jeleniec, Kostrzyca, Krzepiszyn, Miłachowo, Myśligoszcz, Myśligoszcz Wybudowanie, Nierybie, Pokrzywy, Prusinowo Wybudowanie, Pędziszewo, Przypólsko, Rozdoły, Rozwory, Skowarnki, Słupia, Służewo, Smug, Stanisławka, Strzeszyn, Uniechówek, Uniechów, Uniechów Wybudowanie.

| 2. | W gminie Człuchów: Barkowo, Biskupnica, Biskupnica Wybudowanie, Chrząstowo, Chrząstowo Wybudowanie, Chrząstówko, Dziewiątka, Gębarzewo, Jaromierz, Migi, Mosiny, Rogowo. |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Człuchów: Barkowo, Biskupnica, Biskupnica Wybudowanie, Chrząstowo, Chrząstowo Wybudowanie, Chrząstówko, Dziewiątka, Gębarzewo, Jaromierz, Migi, Mosiny, Rogowo.

W gminie Czarne: Bińcze, Gliniana Góra, Wiśniowa Aleja, Wygonki

3.2.2023

W województwie pomorskim w powiecie człuchowskim:

| 1. | W gminie Debrzno: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka. |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Debrzno: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka.

W gminie Człuchów: Barkówko

26.1.2023 – 3.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00057

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Części gmin: Uniejów, Poddębice, Wartkowice, Pęczniew w powiecie poddębickim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Części gmin: Uniejów, Poddębice, Wartkowice, Pęczniew w powiecie poddębickim

| 2. | Części gmin: Świnice Warckie w powiecie łęczyckim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Części gmin: Świnice Warckie w powiecie łęczyckim

W województwie wielkopolskim części gmin Brudzew, Przykona, Dobra w powiecie tureckim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.97360/18.73595

30.1.2023

W województwie łódzkim część gminy Uniejów powiecie poddębickim

W województwie wielkopolskim część gminy Przykona w powiecie tureckim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS:

51.97360/18.73595

17.1.2023 – 30.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00058

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Części gmin: Budziszewice, Ujazd, Rokiciny, Żechlinek w powiecie tomaszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Części gmin: Budziszewice, Ujazd, Rokiciny, Żechlinek w powiecie tomaszowskim.

| 2. | Części gmin: Andrespol, Brójce, Koluszki, Koluszki – miasto w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Części gmin: Andrespol, Brójce, Koluszki, Koluszki – miasto w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim.

| 3. | Części gmin: Brzeziny, Jeżów, Rogów w powiecie brzezińskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Części gmin: Brzeziny, Jeżów, Rogów w powiecie brzezińskim

Zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.71136/19.82636

28.1.2023

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Koluszki, Koluszki miasto w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Koluszki, Koluszki miasto w powiecie łódzkim wschodnim

| 2. | Część gmin: Rokiciny w powiecie tomaszowskim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Rokiciny w powiecie tomaszowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.71136/19.82636

20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00059

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Pleszew, Dobrzyca, Czermin, Chocz, Gołuchów w powiecie pleszewskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Pleszew, Dobrzyca, Czermin, Chocz, Gołuchów w powiecie pleszewskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Blizanów w powiecie kaliskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Blizanów w powiecie kaliskim,

| 3. | Część gmin: Raszków, Ostrów Wielkopolski, Nowe Skalmierzyce w powiecie ostrowskim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gmin: Raszków, Ostrów Wielkopolski, Nowe Skalmierzyce w powiecie ostrowskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.861277/17.846092

29.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim części gmin: Gołuchów i Pleszew w powiecie pleszewskim zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.86127/17.84609

21.1.2023 – 29.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00062

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Żelazków, Opatówek, Ceków-Kolonia, Koźminek, Lisków, Mycielin i Stawiszyn w powiecie kaliskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Żelazków, Opatówek, Ceków-Kolonia, Koźminek, Lisków, Mycielin i Stawiszyn w powiecie kaliskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Malanów w powiecie tureckim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Malanów w powiecie tureckim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.85122/18.23552

28.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Żelazków, Ceków-Kolonia i Mycielin w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Żelazków, Ceków-Kolonia i Mycielin w powiecie kaliskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.85122/18.23552

20.1.2023 – 28.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00063

W województwie śląskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Łazy, Zawiercie miasto, Ogrodzieniec, Poręba, w powiecie zawierciańskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Łazy, Zawiercie miasto, Ogrodzieniec, Poręba, w powiecie zawierciańskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Siewierz, Dąbrowa Górnicza miasto w powiecie będzińskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Siewierz, Dąbrowa Górnicza miasto w powiecie będzińskim,

| 3. | Część gmin: Myszków miasto w powiecie myszkowskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gmin: Myszków miasto w powiecie myszkowskim

Zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 50.42754/19.34959

29.1.2023

W województwie śląskim część gminy Łazy zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 50.42754/19.34959

21.1.2023 – 29.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00064

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Turek, Przykona, Dobra, Kawęczyn, Brudzew, Malanów w powiecie tureckim w województwie wielkopolskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Turek, Przykona, Dobra, Kawęczyn, Brudzew, Malanów w powiecie tureckim w województwie wielkopolskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Uniejów w powiecie poddębickim w województwie wielkopolskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Uniejów w powiecie poddębickim w województwie wielkopolskim.

W województwie łódzkim część gminy Uniejów w powiecie poddębicki.

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.96866/18.58093

30.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Turek, Przykona, Dobra, Kawęczyn w powiecie tureckim w województwie wielkopolskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Turek, Przykona, Dobra, Kawęczyn w powiecie tureckim w województwie wielkopolskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.96866/18.58093

22.1.2023 – 30.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00065

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Grabów nad Prosną, Mikstat, Kraszewice, Doruchów, Czajków w powiecie ostrzeszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Grabów nad Prosną, Mikstat, Kraszewice, Doruchów, Czajków w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim.

| 3. | Część gmin: Brzeziny i Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gmin: Brzeziny i Godziesze Wielkie w powiecie kaliskim.

W województwie łódzkim część gminy Galewice w powiecie wieruszowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.52703/18.16422

31.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Części gmin: Grabów nad Prosną i Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Części gmin: Grabów nad Prosną i Kraszewice w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Sieroszewice w powiecie ostrowskim.

| 3. | Część gminy Brzeziny w powiecie kaliskim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Brzeziny w powiecie kaliskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.52703/18.164223

23.1.2023 – 31.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00066

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Duszniki, Kaźmierz, Pniewy, Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Duszniki, Kaźmierz, Pniewy, Szamotuły w powiecie szamotulskim.

| 2. | Część gmin: Lwówek, Kuślin w powiecie nowotomyskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Lwówek, Kuślin w powiecie nowotomyskim.

| 3. | Część gminy Tarnowo Podgórne w powiecie poznańskim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Tarnowo Podgórne w powiecie poznańskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.48160/16.43688

31.1.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Duszniki, Kaźmierz w powiecie szamotulskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.48160/16.43688

23.1.2023 – 31.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2022-00068

W województwie dolnośląskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Wińsko, Wołów w powiecie wołowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Wińsko, Wołów w powiecie wołowskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Wąsosz, miasto Wąsosz, Jemielno w powiecie górowskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Wąsosz, miasto Wąsosz, Jemielno w powiecie górowskim,

| 3. | Część gmin: Żmigród, Prusice w powiecie trzebnickim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gmin: Żmigród, Prusice w powiecie trzebnickim

Zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: GPS: 51.47256/16.75511

30.1.2023

W województwie dolnośląskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Wińsko w powiecie wołowskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Wińsko w powiecie wołowskim,

| 2. | Część gmin: Wąsosz w powiecie górowskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Wąsosz w powiecie górowskim,

| 3. | Część gmin: Żmigród w powiecie trzebnickim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gmin: Żmigród w powiecie trzebnickim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.47256/16.75511

22.1.2023 – 30.1.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00001

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00001 W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Chocz, Czermin, Gizałki, Gołuchów, Pleszew w powiecie pleszewskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Chocz, Czermin, Gizałki, Gołuchów, Pleszew w powiecie pleszewskim

| 2. | Część gminy Blizanów w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Blizanów w powiecie kaliskim

| 3. | Część gminy Grodziec powiecie konińskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Grodziec powiecie konińskim

| 4. | Część gminy Kotlin w powiecie jarocińskim |
| --- | --- |

4.

Część gminy Kotlin w powiecie jarocińskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10km od współrzędnych GPS:

51.93958/17.854769

4.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Pleszew, Chocz, Czermin w powiecie pleszewskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Pleszew, Chocz, Czermin w powiecie pleszewskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.939588/17.854769

27.1.2023 – 4.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00004

W województwie wielkopolskim część gmin: Żelazków, Kalisz, Opatówek, Koźminek, Ceków-Kolonia, Lisków w powiecie kaliskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.79300/18.19184

5.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim część gmin: Żelazków, Opatówek, Ceków-Kolonia w powiecie kaliskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.79300/18.19184

28.1.2023 – 5.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00005

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00006

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00007

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | W gminie Żelazków: Dębe, Florentyna, Kokanin, Kolonia Skarszewek, Pólko, Skarszew, Skarszewek, Szosa Turecka, Wojciechówka, Borków Nowy, Koronka, Niedźwiady, Biernatki; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Żelazków: Dębe, Florentyna, Kokanin, Kolonia Skarszewek, Pólko, Skarszew, Skarszewek, Szosa Turecka, Wojciechówka, Borków Nowy, Koronka, Niedźwiady, Biernatki;

| 2. | W gminie Ceków-Kolonia: Beznatka, Kamień; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Ceków-Kolonia: Beznatka, Kamień;

| 3. | W gminie Koźminek: Stary Nakwasin, Bogdanów, Rogal, Nowy Nakwasin, Józefina, Pietrzyków, Smółki; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Koźminek: Stary Nakwasin, Bogdanów, Rogal, Nowy Nakwasin, Józefina, Pietrzyków, Smółki;

| 4. | W gminie Opatówek: Borów, Sierzchów, Rajsko, Warszew, Szulec, Józefów, Cienia Folwark, Michałów Pierwszy, Michałów Drugi, Michałów Trzeci, Michałów Czwarty, Tłokinia Mała, Tłokinia Wielka, Rożdżały, Kobierno, Dębe Kolonia, Nędzerzew, Janików, Modła, Zmyślanka; |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Opatówek: Borów, Sierzchów, Rajsko, Warszew, Szulec, Józefów, Cienia Folwark, Michałów Pierwszy, Michałów Drugi, Michałów Trzeci, Michałów Czwarty, Tłokinia Mała, Tłokinia Wielka, Rożdżały, Kobierno, Dębe Kolonia, Nędzerzew, Janików, Modła, Zmyślanka;

| 5. | W gminie Szczytniki: Marchwacz, Marchwacz Kolonia, Trzęsów, Krowica Zawodnia, Krowica Pusta, Cieszyków, Marcjanów, Borek, Kuczewola, Włodzimierz, Pośrednik, Murowaniec, Popów, Szczytniki, Radliczyce, Gorzuchy, Bronibór; |
| --- | --- |

5.

W gminie Szczytniki: Marchwacz, Marchwacz Kolonia, Trzęsów, Krowica Zawodnia, Krowica Pusta, Cieszyków, Marcjanów, Borek, Kuczewola, Włodzimierz, Pośrednik, Murowaniec, Popów, Szczytniki, Radliczyce, Gorzuchy, Bronibór;

| 6. | W gminie Godziesze Wielkie: Borek, Żydów, Stobno, Stobno Siódme, Józefów, Saczyn, Bałdoń, Sobocin, Zadowice, Kąpie, Wola Droszewska, Godziesze Małe, Godziesze Wielkie, Skrzatki, Końska Wieś, Godzieszki, Zajączki Bankowe, Takomyśle, Wola Droszewska, Stara Kakawa, Nowa Kakawa, Kakawa-Kolonia, Krzemionka, Biała, Rafałów; |
| --- | --- |

6.

W gminie Godziesze Wielkie: Borek, Żydów, Stobno, Stobno Siódme, Józefów, Saczyn, Bałdoń, Sobocin, Zadowice, Kąpie, Wola Droszewska, Godziesze Małe, Godziesze Wielkie, Skrzatki, Końska Wieś, Godzieszki, Zajączki Bankowe, Takomyśle, Wola Droszewska, Stara Kakawa, Nowa Kakawa, Kakawa-Kolonia, Krzemionka, Biała, Rafałów;

| 7. | W gminie Brzeziny: Wrząca, Zajączki, Moczalec, Przystajnia, Przystajnia Kolonia, Ostrów Kaliski; |
| --- | --- |

7.

W gminie Brzeziny: Wrząca, Zajączki, Moczalec, Przystajnia, Przystajnia Kolonia, Ostrów Kaliski;

| 8. | W mieście Kalisz: Dobrzec, Sulisławice, Sulisławice Kolonia, osiedla: Adama Asnyka, Chmielnik, Czaszki, Dobro, Dobrzec P, Dobrzec W, Kaliniec, Korczak, Majków, Ogrody, Piskorzewie, Piwonice, Rajsków, Rogatka, Rypinek, Serbinów, Szczypiorno, Śródmieście I, Śródmieście II, Tyniec, Widok, Zagorzynek |
| --- | --- |

8.

W mieście Kalisz: Dobrzec, Sulisławice, Sulisławice Kolonia, osiedla: Adama Asnyka, Chmielnik, Czaszki, Dobro, Dobrzec P, Dobrzec W, Kaliniec, Korczak, Majków, Ogrody, Piskorzewie, Piwonice, Rajsków, Rogatka, Rypinek, Serbinów, Szczypiorno, Śródmieście I, Śródmieście II, Tyniec, Widok, Zagorzynek

w powiecie kaliskim.

| 1. | W gminie Nowe Skalmierzyce: Węgry, Chotów, Strzegowa, Leziona, Gostyczyna, Osiek, Śmiłów; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Nowe Skalmierzyce: Węgry, Chotów, Strzegowa, Leziona, Gostyczyna, Osiek, Śmiłów;

| 2. | W gminie Sieroszewice: Parczew, Sieroszewice, Rososzyca, Biernacice, Zamość, Raduchów, Psary, Latowice, Sławin, Kania, Kęszyce, Bibianki, Ołobok, Westrza; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Sieroszewice: Parczew, Sieroszewice, Rososzyca, Biernacice, Zamość, Raduchów, Psary, Latowice, Sławin, Kania, Kęszyce, Bibianki, Ołobok, Westrza;

| 3. | W gminie Ostrów Wielkopolski: Sadowie, Nowe Kamienice, Wysocko Wielkie, Smardowskie Olendry; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Ostrów Wielkopolski: Sadowie, Nowe Kamienice, Wysocko Wielkie, Smardowskie Olendry;

| 4. | W gminie Przygodzice: Przygodzice, Bogufałów, Chynowa, Przygodziczki, Antonin, Trzcieliny |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Przygodzice: Przygodzice, Bogufałów, Chynowa, Przygodziczki, Antonin, Trzcieliny

w powiecie ostrowskim.

| 1. | W gminie Mikstat: Komorów, Jaźwiny, część miejscowości Mikstat Pustkowie – na południe od drogi gminnej G832559, część miejscowości Przedborów – na południe od drogi wojewódzkiej nr 447; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Mikstat: Komorów, Jaźwiny, część miejscowości Mikstat Pustkowie – na południe od drogi gminnej G832559, część miejscowości Przedborów – na południe od drogi wojewódzkiej nr 447;

| 2. | W gminie Ostrzeszów: Marydół, Korpysy, Siedlików, Zajączki, Rejmanka; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Ostrzeszów: Marydół, Korpysy, Siedlików, Zajączki, Rejmanka;

| 3. | W gminie Grabów nad Prosną: Grabów nad Prosną, Grabów Pustkowie, Grabów Wójtostwo, Książenice, Smolniki, Bukownica, Marszałki, Giżyce, Palaty, Kamola, Chlewo; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Grabów nad Prosną: Grabów nad Prosną, Grabów Pustkowie, Grabów Wójtostwo, Książenice, Smolniki, Bukownica, Marszałki, Giżyce, Palaty, Kamola, Chlewo;

| 4. | W gminie Kraszewice: Racławice, Mączniki. |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Kraszewice: Racławice, Mączniki.

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

9.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim

| 1. | W gminie Opatówek: Szałe, Chełmce, Zduny, Trojanów, Cienia Pierwsza, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Porwity, Opatówek, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Kościelna, Zawady |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Opatówek: Szałe, Chełmce, Zduny, Trojanów, Cienia Pierwsza, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Porwity, Opatówek, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Kościelna, Zawady

| 2. | W gminie Kalisz, osiedle Winiary w mieście Kalisz; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Kalisz, osiedle Winiary w mieście Kalisz;

| 3. | W gminie Godziesze Wielkie, miejscowość Wolica; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Godziesze Wielkie, miejscowość Wolica;

w powiecie kaliskim.

| 1. | W gminie Sieroszewice: Wielowieś, Namysłaki, Masanów, Strzyżew |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Sieroszewice: Wielowieś, Namysłaki, Masanów, Strzyżew

w powiecie ostrowskim.

| 1. | W gminie Mikstat: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kaliszkowice Ołobockie, Kaliszkowice Kaliskie, Mikstat, Kotłów, część miejscowości Mikstat Pustkowie – na północ od drogi gminnej G832559, część miejscowości Przedborów – na północ od drogi wojewódzkiej nr 447 |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Mikstat: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kaliszkowice Ołobockie, Kaliszkowice Kaliskie, Mikstat, Kotłów, część miejscowości Mikstat Pustkowie – na północ od drogi gminnej G832559, część miejscowości Przedborów – na północ od drogi wojewódzkiej nr 447

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

1.2.2023- 9.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00008

W województwie kujawsko-pomorskim:

| 1. | W gminie Świecie nad Osą: Białobłoty, Bursztynowo, Karolewo, Kitnówko, Lisnowo, Lisnówko, Mędrzyce, Szarnoś, Widlice, Partęczyny |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Świecie nad Osą: Białobłoty, Bursztynowo, Karolewo, Kitnówko, Lisnowo, Lisnówko, Mędrzyce, Szarnoś, Widlice, Partęczyny

| 2. | W gminie Łasin: Bogdanki, Jakubkowo, Łasin, Nowe Mosty, Przesławice, Szczepanki, Wybudowanie Łasińskie, Szonowo Szlacheckie, Nowe Błonowo |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Łasin: Bogdanki, Jakubkowo, Łasin, Nowe Mosty, Przesławice, Szczepanki, Wybudowanie Łasińskie, Szonowo Szlacheckie, Nowe Błonowo

| 3. | W gminie Rogóźno: Rogóźno Zamek, Bukowiec |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Rogóźno: Rogóźno Zamek, Bukowiec

| 4. | W gminie Gruta: Annowo, Dąbrówka Królewska, Gołębiewko, Kitnowo, Okonin, Orle, Salno, Plemięta, Niewałd |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Gruta: Annowo, Dąbrówka Królewska, Gołębiewko, Kitnowo, Okonin, Orle, Salno, Plemięta, Niewałd

| 5. | W gminie Radzyń Chełmiński: Czeczewo, Gołębiewo, Nowy Dwór, Radzyń Chełmiński, Rywałd, Stara Ruda, Szumiłowo, Zakrzewo, Kneblowo, Mazanki, Radzyń Wybudowanie |
| --- | --- |

5.

W gminie Radzyń Chełmiński: Czeczewo, Gołębiewo, Nowy Dwór, Radzyń Chełmiński, Rywałd, Stara Ruda, Szumiłowo, Zakrzewo, Kneblowo, Mazanki, Radzyń Wybudowanie

w powiecie grudziądzkim.

| 1. | W gminie Jabłonowo Pomorskie: Adamowo, Budziszewo, Buk Pomorski, Jabłonowo Pomorskie, Jabłonowo-Zamek, Szczepanki, Nowa Wieś |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Jabłonowo Pomorskie: Adamowo, Budziszewo, Buk Pomorski, Jabłonowo Pomorskie, Jabłonowo-Zamek, Szczepanki, Nowa Wieś

w powiecie brodnickim.

| 1. | W gminie Książki: Blizno, Blizienko, Szczuplinki w powiecie wąbrzeskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Książki: Blizno, Blizienko, Szczuplinki w powiecie wąbrzeskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 53.44146/19.03353

6.2.2023

W województwie kujawsko – pomorskim w powiecie grudziądzkim:

| 1. | W gminie Świecie nad Osą: Linowo, Rychnowo, Świecie nad Osą, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Świecie nad Osą: Linowo, Rychnowo, Świecie nad Osą,

| 2. | W gminie Gruta: Boguszewo, Słup, Gruta, Jasiewo, Mełno |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Gruta: Boguszewo, Słup, Gruta, Jasiewo, Mełno

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 53.44146/19.03353

29.1.2023 – 6.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00009

W województwie lubuskim:

| 1. | Część gminy: Nowogród Bobrzański w powiecie zielonogórskim, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy: Nowogród Bobrzański w powiecie zielonogórskim,

| 2. | Część gminy: Czerwieńsk w powiecie zielonogórskim, |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy: Czerwieńsk w powiecie zielonogórskim,

| 3. | Część gminy Świdnica w powiecie zielonogórskim, |
| --- | --- |

3.

Część gminy Świdnica w powiecie zielonogórskim,

| 4. | Część miasta Zielona Góra w powiecie zielonogórskim, |
| --- | --- |

4.

Część miasta Zielona Góra w powiecie zielonogórskim,

| 5. | Część gminy: Kożuchów w powiecie nowosolskim, |
| --- | --- |

5.

Część gminy: Kożuchów w powiecie nowosolskim,

| 6. | Część gminy Otyń w powiecie nowosolskim, |
| --- | --- |

6.

Część gminy Otyń w powiecie nowosolskim,

| 7. | Część gminy: Nowa Sól w powiecie nowosolskim, |
| --- | --- |

7.

Część gminy: Nowa Sól w powiecie nowosolskim,

zawierająca się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.87236/15.47649

16.2.2023

W województwie lubuskim:

Osiedla miasta Zielona Góra: Ochla, Jarogniewice, Kiełpin i Jeleniów w Dzielnicy Nowe Miasto w powiecie zielonogórskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.87236/15.47649

8.2.2023 – 16.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00010

W województwie łódzkim część gmin:

| 1. | Łęczyca, Witonia, Góry św. Małgorzaty, Daszyna, Piątek, Grabków, miasto Łęczyca w powiecie łęczyckim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Łęczyca, Witonia, Góry św. Małgorzaty, Daszyna, Piątek, Grabków, miasto Łęczyca w powiecie łęczyckim

| 2. | Kutno, Krzyżanów w powiecie kutnowskim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Kutno, Krzyżanów w powiecie kutnowskim

| 3. | Ozorków w powiecie zgierskim |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ozorków w powiecie zgierskim

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.10725/19.25505

9.2.2023

W województwie łódzkim część gmin: Łęczyca, Witonia, Góry św. Małgorzaty w powiecie łęczyckim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 52.10725/19.25505

1.2.2023- 9.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00011

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00014

W województwie wielkopolskim w powiecie kaliskim:

| 1. | W gminie Ceków-Kolonia: Beznatka, Kamień, Morawin, Podzborów; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Ceków-Kolonia: Beznatka, Kamień, Morawin, Podzborów;

| 2. | W gminie Godziesze Wielkie: Bałdoń, Borek, Józefów, Saczyn, Stobno, Stobno Siódme, Takomyśle, Wolica, Zajączki Bankowe, Żydów; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Godziesze Wielkie: Bałdoń, Borek, Józefów, Saczyn, Stobno, Stobno Siódme, Takomyśle, Wolica, Zajączki Bankowe, Żydów;

| 3. | W gminie Koźminek: Bogdanów, Chodybki, Dębsko, Emilianów, Józefina, Koźminek, Krzyżówki, Młynisko, Moskurnia, Nowy Nakwasin, Osuchów, Pietrzyków, Rogal, Słowiki, Stary Karolew, Tymianek, Złotniki; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Koźminek: Bogdanów, Chodybki, Dębsko, Emilianów, Józefina, Koźminek, Krzyżówki, Młynisko, Moskurnia, Nowy Nakwasin, Osuchów, Pietrzyków, Rogal, Słowiki, Stary Karolew, Tymianek, Złotniki;

| 4. | W gminie Lisków: Budy Liskowskie, Ciepielew, Koźlątków, Lisków, Lisków-Rzgów, Trzebienie, Żychów; |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Lisków: Budy Liskowskie, Ciepielew, Koźlątków, Lisków, Lisków-Rzgów, Trzebienie, Żychów;

| 5. | W gminie Opatówek: Chełmce, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Dębe-Kolonia, Kobierno, Michałów Drugi, Michałów Trzeci, Nędzerzew, Porwity, Szałe, Tłokinia Kościelna, Trojanów, Zawady, Zduny; |
| --- | --- |

5.

W gminie Opatówek: Chełmce, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Dębe-Kolonia, Kobierno, Michałów Drugi, Michałów Trzeci, Nędzerzew, Porwity, Szałe, Tłokinia Kościelna, Trojanów, Zawady, Zduny;

| 6. | W gminie Szczytniki: Antonin, Borek, Bronibór, Chojno, Główczyn, Guzdek, Iwanowice, Joanka, Korzekwin, Kościany, Kuczewola, Lipka, Marcjanów, Murowaniec, Niemiecka Wieś, Popów, Pośrednik, Staw, Szczytniki, Włodzimierz; |
| --- | --- |

6.

W gminie Szczytniki: Antonin, Borek, Bronibór, Chojno, Główczyn, Guzdek, Iwanowice, Joanka, Korzekwin, Kościany, Kuczewola, Lipka, Marcjanów, Murowaniec, Niemiecka Wieś, Popów, Pośrednik, Staw, Szczytniki, Włodzimierz;

| 7. | W gminie Żelazków: Biernatki, Borków Nowy, Borków Stary, Czartki, Dębe, Florentyna, Góry Zborowskie, Ilno, Kolonia Skarszewek, Koronka, Pólko, Skarszew, Skarszewek, Szosa Turecka, Wojciechówka, Zborów. |
| --- | --- |

7.

W gminie Żelazków: Biernatki, Borków Nowy, Borków Stary, Czartki, Dębe, Florentyna, Góry Zborowskie, Ilno, Kolonia Skarszewek, Koronka, Pólko, Skarszew, Skarszewek, Szosa Turecka, Wojciechówka, Zborów.

14.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim w powiecie kaliskim:

| 1. | W gminie Koźminek: Dąbrowa, Gać Kaliska, Ksawerów, Marianów, Nowy Karolew, Oszczeklin, Smółki, Stary Nakwasin, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Koźminek: Dąbrowa, Gać Kaliska, Ksawerów, Marianów, Nowy Karolew, Oszczeklin, Smółki, Stary Nakwasin,

| 2. | W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Mała, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka, |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Mała, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka,

W gminie Szczytniki: Cieszyków, Gorzuchy, Krowica Pusta, Krowica Zawodnia, Marchwacz, Marchwacz-Kolonia, Mroczki Wielkie, Radliczyce, Trzęsów, Tymieniec.

6.2.2023 – 14.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00012

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Opatówek, Koźminek, Szczytniki, Godziesze Wielkie, Kalisz, Żelazków, Ceków Kolonia w powiecie kaliskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Opatówek, Koźminek, Szczytniki, Godziesze Wielkie, Kalisz, Żelazków, Ceków Kolonia w powiecie kaliskim.

| 2. | Część gminy Nowe Skalmierzyce w powiecie ostrowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Nowe Skalmierzyce w powiecie ostrowskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.73399/18.20911

11.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gminy Opatówek w powiecie kaliskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Opatówek w powiecie kaliskim

zawierająca się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.73399/18.20911

3.2.2023 – 11.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00013

W województwie opolskim:

| 1. | W gminie Pokój: Dąbrówka Dolna, Domaradzka Kuźnia, Fałkowice, Kopalina; Krzywa Góra, Lubnów, Ładza, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Pokój: Dąbrówka Dolna, Domaradzka Kuźnia, Fałkowice, Kopalina; Krzywa Góra, Lubnów, Ładza,

| 2. | W gminie Domaszowice: Nowa Wieś, Siemysłów, Zofijówka, |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Domaszowice: Nowa Wieś, Siemysłów, Zofijówka,

| 3. | W gminie Namysłów: Jastrzębie, |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Namysłów: Jastrzębie,

| 4. | W gminie Świerczów: Biestrzykowice, Bąkowice, Bielice, Dąbrowa, Gola, Kuźnica Dąbrowska, Miejsce, Miodary, Osiek Duży, Pieczyska, Starościn, Świerczów, Wężowice; Zbica; |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Świerczów: Biestrzykowice, Bąkowice, Bielice, Dąbrowa, Gola, Kuźnica Dąbrowska, Miejsce, Miodary, Osiek Duży, Pieczyska, Starościn, Świerczów, Wężowice; Zbica;

w powiecie namysłowskim.

| 1. | W gminie Murów: Grabczok, Grabice, Okoły, Zagwiździe, Święciny, |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Murów: Grabczok, Grabice, Okoły, Zagwiździe, Święciny,

| 2. | W gminie Popielów: Kaniów, Kuźnica Katowska, Lubienia, część miejscowości Kurznie, Karłowice, Popielów- na wschód od linii kolejowej nr 277 oraz część miejscowości Nowe Siołkowice – na północ od ulic Dworcowej i Kupskiej, |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Popielów: Kaniów, Kuźnica Katowska, Lubienia, część miejscowości Kurznie, Karłowice, Popielów- na wschód od linii kolejowej nr 277 oraz część miejscowości Nowe Siołkowice – na północ od ulic Dworcowej i Kupskiej,

| 3. | W gminie Dobrzeń Wielki: Kup |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Dobrzeń Wielki: Kup

w powiecie opolskim.

11.2.2023

W województwie opolskim w powiecie namysłowskim:

| 1. | W gminie Pokój: Domaradz, Krogulna, Pokój, Siedlice, Zieleniec, Jagienna, Kozuby, Żabiniec. |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Pokój: Domaradz, Krogulna, Pokój, Siedlice, Zieleniec, Jagienna, Kozuby, Żabiniec.

3.2.2023 -11.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00015

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Kępno, Bralin, Kobyla Góra, Baranów w powiecie kępińskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Kępno, Bralin, Kobyla Góra, Baranów w powiecie kępińskim.

| 2. | Część gmin: Doruchów, Ostrzeszów, Grabów nad Prosną w powiecie ostrzeszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gmin: Doruchów, Ostrzeszów, Grabów nad Prosną w powiecie ostrzeszowskim.

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gmin: Wieruszów, Galewice w powiecie wieruszowskim. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gmin: Wieruszów, Galewice w powiecie wieruszowskim.

zawierające się w promieniu 10 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.35345/18.05265

14.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | Część gminy Kępno w powiecie kępińskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Kępno w powiecie kępińskim

| 2. | Część gminy Doruchów w powiecie ostrzeszowskim |
| --- | --- |

2.

Część gminy Doruchów w powiecie ostrzeszowskim

W województwie łódzkim:

| 1. | Część gminy Wieruszów w powiecie wieruszowskim |
| --- | --- |

1.

Część gminy Wieruszów w powiecie wieruszowskim

zawierające się w promieniu 3 km od współrzędnych GPS: 51.35345/18.05265

6.2.2023 – 14.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00016

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00018

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | W gminie Ceków-Kolonia, miejscowość: Beznatka (wraz z Korek), Kamień (wraz z Bystrek, Cierpiatka, Kamień-Kolonia, Magdalenów, Orzeł), Morawin, Podzborów; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Ceków-Kolonia, miejscowość: Beznatka (wraz z Korek), Kamień (wraz z Bystrek, Cierpiatka, Kamień-Kolonia, Magdalenów, Orzeł), Morawin, Podzborów;

| 2. | W gminie Godziesze Wielkie: Bałdoń, Borek, Saczyn, Stobno, Stobno Siódme, Takomyśle, Wolica, Zajączki Bankowe, Żydów; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Godziesze Wielkie: Bałdoń, Borek, Saczyn, Stobno, Stobno Siódme, Takomyśle, Wolica, Zajączki Bankowe, Żydów;

| 3. | W gminie Koźminek: Chodybki, Dąbrowa, Dębsko, Emilianów, Gać Kaliska, Józefina, Koźminek, Krzyżówki, Ksawerów, Marianów, Młynisko, Nowy Karolew, Nowy Nakwasin, Osuchów, Oszczeklin, Rogal, Słowiki, Smółki, Stary Karolew, Tymianek, Złotniki |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Koźminek: Chodybki, Dąbrowa, Dębsko, Emilianów, Gać Kaliska, Józefina, Koźminek, Krzyżówki, Ksawerów, Marianów, Młynisko, Nowy Karolew, Nowy Nakwasin, Osuchów, Oszczeklin, Rogal, Słowiki, Smółki, Stary Karolew, Tymianek, Złotniki

| 4. | W gminie Lisków: Koźlątków; |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Lisków: Koźlątków;

| 5. | W gminie Opatówek, miejscowości: Chełmce, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Dębe-Kolonia, Kobierno, Michałów Trzeci, Nędzerzew, Porwity, Szałe, Tłokinia Kościelna, Tłokinia Mała, Trojanów, Zawady, Zduny; |
| --- | --- |

5.

W gminie Opatówek, miejscowości: Chełmce, Cienia Druga, Cienia Trzecia, Dębe-Kolonia, Kobierno, Michałów Trzeci, Nędzerzew, Porwity, Szałe, Tłokinia Kościelna, Tłokinia Mała, Trojanów, Zawady, Zduny;

| 6. | W gminie Szczytniki: Borek, Bronibór, Cieszyków, Gorzuchy, Guzdek, Iwanowice, Korzekwin, Kościany, Krowica Pusta, Kuczewola, Lipka, Marchwacz-Kolonia, Marcjanów, Mroczki Wielkie, Murowaniec, Popów, Pośrednik, Radliczyce, Staw, Szczytniki, Trzęsów, Tymieniec, Włodzimierz; |
| --- | --- |

6.

W gminie Szczytniki: Borek, Bronibór, Cieszyków, Gorzuchy, Guzdek, Iwanowice, Korzekwin, Kościany, Krowica Pusta, Kuczewola, Lipka, Marchwacz-Kolonia, Marcjanów, Mroczki Wielkie, Murowaniec, Popów, Pośrednik, Radliczyce, Staw, Szczytniki, Trzęsów, Tymieniec, Włodzimierz;

| 7. | W gminie Żelazków: Biernatki, Czartki, Dębe, Florentyna, Góry Zborowskie, Ilno, Kolonia Skarszewek, Pólko, Skarszew, Skarszewek, Szosa Turecka, Wojciechówka, Zborów |
| --- | --- |

7.

W gminie Żelazków: Biernatki, Czartki, Dębe, Florentyna, Góry Zborowskie, Ilno, Kolonia Skarszewek, Pólko, Skarszew, Skarszewek, Szosa Turecka, Wojciechówka, Zborów

w powiecie kaliskim.

15.2.2023

W województwie wielkopolskim:

| 1. | W gminie Koźminek: Bogdanów, Pietrzyków, Stary Nakwasin; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Koźminek: Bogdanów, Pietrzyków, Stary Nakwasin;

| 2. | W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Michałów Drugi, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Opatówek: miasto Opatówek, Borów, Cienia-Folwark, Cienia Pierwsza, Janików, Józefów, Michałów Drugi, Rajsko, Rożdżały, Sierzchów, Szulec, Tłokinia Nowa, Tłokinia Wielka, Warszew, Michałów Czwarty, Modła, Słoneczna, Zmyślanka;

| 3. | W gminie Szczytnik: Krowica Zawodnia, Marchwacz. |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Szczytnik: Krowica Zawodnia, Marchwacz.

w powiecie kaliskim.

7.2.2023 – 15.2.2023

PL-HPAI(P)-2023-00017

W województwie opolskim:

| 1. | W gminie Walce: Brożec; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Walce: Brożec;

| 2. | W gminie Krapkowice: Dąbrówka Górna, Gwoździce, Kórnica, Krapkowice, Ligota Krapkowicka, Nowy Dwór Prudnicki, Pietna, Rogów Opolski, Steblów, Ściborowice, Żywocice; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Krapkowice: Dąbrówka Górna, Gwoździce, Kórnica, Krapkowice, Ligota Krapkowicka, Nowy Dwór Prudnicki, Pietna, Rogów Opolski, Steblów, Ściborowice, Żywocice;

| 3. | W gminie Strzeleczki: Dziedzice, Komorniki, Łowkowice, Pisarzowice, Wawrzyńcowice; |
| --- | --- |

3.

W gminie Strzeleczki: Dziedzice, Komorniki, Łowkowice, Pisarzowice, Wawrzyńcowice;

| 4. | W gminie Gogolin: Odrowąż; |
| --- | --- |

4.

W gminie Gogolin: Odrowąż;

w powiecie krapkowickim.

| 1. | W gminie Biała: Chrzelice, Czartowice, Gostomia, Górka Prudnicka, Krobusz, Łącznik, Mokra, Nowa Wieś Prudnicka, Ogiernicze, Pogórze, Radostynia, Wilków; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Biała: Chrzelice, Czartowice, Gostomia, Górka Prudnicka, Krobusz, Łącznik, Mokra, Nowa Wieś Prudnicka, Ogiernicze, Pogórze, Radostynia, Wilków;

| 2. | W gminie Głogówek: Błażejowice Dolne, Kierpień, Leśnik, Mionów, Rzepcze, Zawada, część miejscowości Głogówek – na północ od DK 40; |
| --- | --- |

2.

W gminie Głogówek: Błażejowice Dolne, Kierpień, Leśnik, Mionów, Rzepcze, Zawada, część miejscowości Głogówek – na północ od DK 40;

w powiecie prudnickim.

| 1. | W gminie Prószków: Ligota Prószkowska, Przysiecz – na południe od Potoku Prószkowskiego; |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Prószków: Ligota Prószkowska, Przysiecz – na południe od Potoku Prószkowskiego;

w powiecie opolskim.

| 1. | W gminie Korfantów: Przechód; Borek, Rzymkowice |
| --- | --- |

1.

W gminie Korfantów: Przechód; Borek, Rzymkowice

w powiecie nyskim.

15.2.2023

W województwie opolskim w gminie Strzeleczki: Dobra, Kujawy, Moszna, Racławiczki, Smolarnia, Strzeleczki, Ścigów, Zielina w powiecie krapkowickim

7.2.2023 -15.2.2023

Member State: Romania

| ADIS reference number of the outbreak | Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| County: Arad |
| HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003 | Following localities: | Peregu Mic – comuna Pergu Mare |

ADIS reference number of the outbreak

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

County: Arad

HU-HPAI(P)-2023-00003

Following localities:

Peregu Mic – comuna Pergu Mare

| | Turnu – oraș Pecica |
| --- | --- |

Turnu – oraș Pecica

| | Variașu Mare – comuna Iartoșu |
| --- | --- |

Variașu Mare – comuna Iartoșu

| | Variașu Mic – comuna Iartoșu |
| --- | --- |

Variașu Mic – comuna Iartoșu

12.2.2023

Part C

Further restricted zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Articles 1 and 3a:

Member State: France

| Area comprising: | Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a |
| --- | --- |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Creuse (23) |
| CLAIRAVAUX
  LA COURTINE
  CROZE
  LIOUX-LES-MONGES
  LE MAS-D’ARTIGE
  MAUTES
  LA MAZIÈRE-AUX-BONS-HOMMES
  MERINCHAL
  MOUTIER-ROZEILLE
  NÉOUX
  PONTCHARRAUD
  POUSSANGES
  SAINT-AVIT-DE-TARDES
  SAINT-BARD
  SAINTE-FEYRE-LA-MONTAGNE
  SAINT-FRION
  SAINT-ORADOUX-PRÈS-CROCQ
  SAINT-PARDOUX-D’ARNET
  LA VILLENEUVE
  LA VILLETELLE | 17.1.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Dordogne (24) |
| LES COTEAUX PERIGOURDINS
  DOMME
  CAZOULES
  FANLAC
  LFLEURAC
  PEYZAC-LE-MOUSTIER
  PEYRILLAC-ET-MILLAC
  SAINT-JULIEN-DE-LAMPON
  SAINT-VINCENT-DE-COSSE
  LA ROQUE-GAGEAC
  CARSAC-AILLAC
  LES EYZIES-DE-TAYAC-SIREUIL
  CONDAT-SUR-VEZERE
  VITRAC
  BEYNAC-ET-CAZENAC
  GROLEJAC
  SAINTE-MONDANE
  LA FEUILLADE
  SERGEAC
  THONAC
  BEAUREGARD-DE-TERRASSON
  PLAZAC
  PAZAYAC
  TURSAC
  LES FARGES
  CALVIAC-EN-PERIGORD
  BARS
  LA BACHELLERIE
  VEYRIGNAC
  CARLUX
  AURIAC-DU-PERIGORD
  SAINT-LEON-SUR-VEZERE
  CASTELS ET BEZENAC
  LE LARDIN-SAINT-LAZARE
  MEYRALS
  VEZAC
  TERRASSON-LAVILLEDIEU | 27.1.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Gers (32) |
| ARBLADE-LE-BAS
  ARBLADE-LE-HAUT
  ARMENTIEUX
  ARMOUS-ET-CAU
  BARCELONNE-DU-GERS
  BASCOUS
  BASSOUES
  BAZIAN
  BELMONT
  BOURROUILLAN
  CAILLAVET
  CALLIAN
  CASTELNAU-D’ANGLES
  CAUMONT
  CAUPENNE-D’ARMAGNAC
  CAZAUX-D’ANGLES
  COURTIES
  EAUZE
  JU-BELLOC
  JUILLAC
  LABARTHETE
  LADEVEZE-RIVIERE
  LADEVEZE-VILLE
  LANNE-SOUBIRAN
  LANNEPAX
  LAUJUZAN
  LAVERAET
  LELIN-LAPUJOLLE
  LUPPE-VIOLLES
  MAGNAN
  MANCIET
  MARCIAC
  MASCARAS
  MAULICHERES
  MAUMUSSON-LAGUIAN
  MONTESQUIOU
  NOGARO
  NOULENS
  PANJAS
  PERCHEDE
  PEYRUSSE-GRANDE
  PRENERON
  RAMOUZENS
  RIGUEPEU
  RISCLE
  ROQUEBRUNE
  SAINT-AUNIX-LENGROS
  SAINT-GERME
  SAINT-GRIEDE
  SAINT-MONT
  SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D’ARMAGNAC
  SALLES-D’ARMAGNAC
  SCIEURAC-ET-FLOURES
  TARSAC
  TIESTE-URAGNOUX
  TOURDUN
  TUDELLE
  VERGOIGNAN
  VIC-FEZENSAC
  VIELLA | 6.2.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Indre (36) |
| AIZE
  BAGNEUX Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D25
  BAUDRES
  BOUGES-LE-CHATEAU Partie de commune située au Nord de la D2, puis de la D34A
  BUXEUIL
  FONTGUENAND Partie de commune située au Sud de la D52
  GUILLY
  LANGE
  POULAINES Partie de commune située au Nord de D960
  ROUVRES LES BOIS
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-EN-BAZELLE partie de commune située au Sud-Ouest de D25
  SEMBLECAY Partie de commune située au Sud de D25
  VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Nord-Ouest du Nahon
  VAL-FOUZON
  VEUIL
  VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D956 et au Sud de la D109
  ANJOUIN
  BAGNEUX Partie de commune à l’Est de D25
  BOUGES-LE-CHATEAU Partie de commune au Sud de D2 puis de D34A
  BRETAGNE
  CHABRIS
  LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-LAURIAN
  DUN-LE-POELIER
  ECUEILLE Partie de la commune au Sud de D13et à l’Est de D8
  FONTENAY
  FONTGUENAND Partie de commune au Nord de la D52
  FREDILLE
  GEHEE
  HEUGNES Partie de commune à l’Est de la voie ferrée
  JEU-MALOCHES
  LEVROUX
  LINIEZ
  LUCAY-LE-MALE
  LYE
  MENETOU-SUR-NAHON
  MEUNET-SUR-VATAN
  MOULINS-SUR-CEPHONS
  ORVILLE
  REBOURSIN
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-EN-BAZELLE Partie de commune au Nord Est de la D25
  SAINT-FLORENTIN
  SELLES-SUR-NAHON
  SEMBLECAY partie de commune au Nord de D25
  VATAN
  LA VERNELLE
  VEUIL
  VILLENTROIS FAVEROLLES EN BERRY | 26.1.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Manche (50) |
| ANNEVILLE-EN-SAIRE
  AUDOUVILLE-LA-HUBERT
  AUMEVILLE-LESTRE
  AZEVILLE
  BARFLEUR
  BESNEVILLE
  BEUZEVILLE-LA-BASTILLE
  BINIVILLE
  BLOSVILLE
  BRETTEVILLE
  BREUVILLE
  BRICQUEBEC-EN-COTENTIN
  BRICQUEBOSQ
  BRILLEVAST
  BRIX
  CANTELOUP
  CARNEVILLE
  CARQUEBUT
  CATTEVILLE
  CHERBOURG-EN-COTENTIN
  CLITOURPS
  COLOMBY
  COUVILLE
  CRASVILLE
  CROSVILLE-SUR-DOUVE
  DIGOSVILLE
  ECAUSSEVILLE
  EMONDEVILLE
  EROUDEVILLE
  ETIENVILLE
  FERMANVILLE
  FIERVILLE-LES-MINES
  FLOTTEMANVILLE
  FONTENAY-SUR-MER
  FRESVILLE
  GATTEVILLE-LE-Phare
  GOLLEVILLE
  GONNEVILLE-LE THEIL
  GROSVILLE
  HARDINVAST
  HAUTTEVILLE-BOCAGE
  HEMEVEZ
  HUBERVILLE
  JOGANVILLE
  L’ETANG-BERTRAND
  LA BONNEVILLE
  LA HAGUE
  LA PERNELLE
  LE HAM
  LE MESNIL-AU-VAL
  LE VAST
  LE VICEL
  LESTRE
  LIEUSAINT
  MAGNEVILLE
  MARTINVAST
  MAUPERTUS-SUR-MER
  MONTAIGU-LA-BRISETTE
  MONTEBOURG
  MONTFARVILLE
  MORSALINES
  MORVILLE
  NEGREVILLE
  NEHOU
  NEUVILLE-AU-PLAIN
  NOUAINVILLE
  OCTEVILLE-L’AVENEL
  ORGLANDES
  OZEVILLE
  PICAUVILLE
  QUETTEHOU
  QUINEVILLE
  RAUVILLE-LA-BIGOT
  RAUVILLE-LA-PLACE
  RAVENOVILLE
  REIGNEVILLE-BOCAGE
  REVILLE
  ROCHEVILLE
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-FOC
  SAINT-CYR
  SAINT-FLOXEL
  SAINT-GERMAIN-DE-TOURNEBUT
  SAINT-GERMAIN-DE-VARREVILLE
  SAINT-JACQUES-DE-NEHOU
  SAINT-JOSEPH
  SAINT-MARCOUF
  SAINT-MARTIN-D’AUDOUVILLE
  SAINT-MARTIN-DE-VARREVILLE
  SAINT-MARTIN-LE-GREARD
  SAINT-PIERRE-D’ARTHEGLISE
  SAINT-PIERRE-EGLISE
  SAINT-SAUVEUR-LE-VICOMTE
  SAINT-VAAST-LA-HOUGUE
  SAINTE-COLOMBE
  SAINTE-GENEVIEVE
  SAINTE-MERE-EGLISE
  SAUSSEMESNIL
  SEBEVILLE
  SIDEVILLE
  SORTOSVILLE
  SORTOSVILLE-EN-BEAUMONT
  SOTTEVAST
  TAILLEPIED
  TAMERVILLE
  TEURTHEVILLE-BOCAGE
  TEURTHEVILLE-HAGUE
  THEVILLE
  TOCQUEVILLE
  TOLLEVAST
  TURQUEVILLE
  URVILLE
  VALCANVILLE
  VALOGNES
  VARENGUEBEC
  VAROUVILLE
  VAUDREVILLE
  VICQ-SUR-MER
  VIDECOSVILLE
  VIRANDEVILLE
  YVETOT-BOCAGE
  ANNEVILLE-EN-SAIRE | 28.1.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Puy-de-Dôme (63) |
| BOURG-LASTIC
  BRIFFONS
  LA CELLE
  CONDAT-EN-COMBRAILLE
  HERMENT
  LASTIC
  MESSEIX
  PUY-SAINT-GULMIER
  SAINT-AVIT
  SAINT-ETIENNE-DES-CHAMPS
  SAINT-GERMAIN-PRES-HERMENT
  SAUVAGNAT
  VOINGT | 17.2.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64) |
| ARROSES
  AYDIE
  CROUSEILLES
  AUBOUS
  AURIONS IDERNES
  BETRACQ
  CONCHEZ DE BEARN
  DIUSSE
  LASSERRE
  MONPEZAT
  MONT DISSE
  PORTET | 6.2.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65) |
| ADE
  ANDREST
  ANTIN
  ARCIZAC-ADOUR
  ARCIZAC-EZ-ANGLES
  ARGELES-BAGNERES
  ARNE
  ARRODETS-EZ-ANGLES
  ARRODETS
  ASQUE
  ASTE
  ASTUGUE
  AURENSAN
  AURIEBAT
  AVERAN
  AVEZAC-PRAT-LAHITTE
  AZEREIX
  BAGNERES-DE-BIGORRE
  BANIOS
  BARRY
  LA BARTHE-DE-NESTE
  BATSERE
  BAZET
  BAZILLAC
  BEAUDEAN
  BENAC
  BENQUE-MOLERE
  BERNADETS-DEBAT
  BETPOUY
  BETTES
  BONREPOS
  BORDERES-SUR-L’ECHEZ
  BOUILH-DEVANT
  BOUILH-PEREUILH
  BOURG-DE-BIGORRE
  BOURREAC
  BOURS
  BULAN
  CAMPAN
  CAMPISTROUS
  CAMPUZAN
  CAPVERN
  CASTELBAJAC
  CASTELNAU-RIVIERE-BASSE
  CASTERA-LOU
  CAUBOUS
  CAUSSADE-RIVIERE
  CHELLE-DEBAT
  CHIS
  CLARENS
  COLLONGUES
  DOURS
  ESCALA
  ESCONDEAUX
  ESCONNETS
  ESCOTS
  ESCOUBES-POUTS
  ESPARROS
  ESPECHE
  ESPIEILH
  ESTIRAC
  FONTRAILLES
  FRECHEDE
  FRECHENDETS
  GALAN
  GALEZ
  GAUSSAN
  GAYAN
  GERDE
  GERMS-SUR-L’OUSSOUET
  GEZ-EZ-ANGLES
  GONEZ
  HAGEDET
  HAUBAN
  HERES
  HIBARETTE
  HIIS
  HORGUES
  HOUEYDETS
  IBOS
  IZAUX
  JACQUE
  JUILLAN
  JULOS
  LABASSERE
  LABASTIDE
  LABATUT-RIVIERE
  LABORDE
  LACASSAGNE
  LAGARDE
  LAGRANGE
  ARRAYOU-LAHITTE
  LALANNE-TRIE
  LALOUBERE
  LAMARQUE-RUSTAING
  LAMEAC
  LANNE
  LANNEMEZAN
  LAPEYRE
  LARAN
  LASCAZERES
  LAYRISSE
  LESCURRY
  LEZIGNAN
  LIBAROS
  LIES
  LOMNE
  LORTET
  LOUCRUP
  LOUEY
  LOUIT
  LUBRET-SAINT-LUC
  LUBY-BETMONT
  LUSTAR
  MADIRAN
  MANSAN
  MARSAC
  MARSAS
  MARSEILLAN
  MAUBOURGUET
  MAZEROLLES
  MOMERES
  MONLONG
  MONTOUSSE
  MOUMOULOUS
  MUN
  NEUILH
  ODOS
  OLEAC-DEBAT
  ORDIZAN
  ORINCLES
  ORLEIX
  OSMETS
  OSSUN
  OSSUN-EZ-ANGLES
  OURSBELILLE
  PAREAC
  PEYRUN
  PINAS
  POUZAC
  PUYDARRIEUX
  RECURT
  REJAUMONT
  SABALOS
  SABARROS
  SADOURNIN
  SAINT-LANNE
  SAINT-MARTIN
  SAINT-SEVER-DE-RUSTAN
  SARLABOUS
  SARNIGUET
  SENAC
  SENTOUS
  SIARROUY
  SOREAC
  SOUBLECAUSE
  TAJAN
  TARBES
  TILHOUSE
  TOSTAT
  TOURNOUS-DARRE
  TOURNOUS-DEVANT
  TREBONS
  TRIE-SUR-BAISE
  TROULEY-LABARTHE
  TUZAGUET
  UGLAS
  UGNOUAS
  UZER
  VIDOU
  VIEUZOS
  VILLEFRANQUE
  VILLEMBITS
  VILLENAVE-PRES-MARSAC
  VISKER
  CANTAOUS | 23.1.2023 |
| VILLEFRANQUE
  LABATUT RIVIERE
  CASTELNAU RIVIERE BASSE
  ESTIRAC
  HAGEDET
  MAUBOURGUET
  CAUSSADE-RIVIERE
  SAINT LANNE
  AURIEBAT
  MADIRAN
  SOUBLECAUSE
  LASCAZERES
  HERES | 6.2.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Rhône (69) |
| AFFOUX
  ALBIGNY-SUR-SAONE
  ALIX
  AMBERIEUX
  AMPLEPUIS
  ANCY
  ANSE
  L’ARBRESLE
  AVEIZE
  BAGNOLS
  BELMONT-D’AZERGUES
  BESSENAY
  BIBOST
  VAL D’OINGT
  LE BREUIL
  BRIGNAIS
  BRINDAS
  BRULLIOLES
  BRUSSIEU
  BULLY
  CALUIRE-ET-CUIRE
  CHAMBOST-ALLIERES
  CHAMBOST-LONGESSAIGNE
  CHAMELET
  CHAMPAGNE-AU-MONT-D’OR
  LA CHAPELLE-SUR-COISE
  CHAPONOST
  CHARBONNIERES-LES-BAINS
  CHARNAY
  CHASSELAY
  CHATILLON
  CHAUSSAN
  CHAZAY-D’AZERGUES
  LES CHERES
  CHESSY
  CHEVINAY
  CIVRIEUX-D’AZERGUES
  COGNY
  COLLONGES-AU-MONT-D’OR
  COURZIEU
  COUZON-AU-MONT-D’OR
  CRAPONNE
  CURIS-AU-MONT-D’OR
  DARDILLY
  DAREIZE
  DENICE
  DIEME
  DOMMARTIN
  DUERNE
  ECULLY
  EVEUX
  FLEURIEUX-SUR-L’ARBRESLE
  FRANCHEVILLE
  FRONTENAS
  GENAY
  GLEIZE
  GREZIEU-LA-VARENNE
  GREZIEU-LE-MARCHE
  LES HALLES
  HAUTE-RIVOIRE
  JARNIOUX
  JOUX
  LACENAS
  LACHASSAGNE
  LEGNY
  LENTILLY
  LETRA
  LIMAS
  LIMONEST
  LISSIEU
  LONGESSAIGNE
  LOZANNE
  LUCENAY
  LYON
  MARCILLY-D’AZERGUES
  MARCY
  MARCY-L’ETOILE
  MESSIMY
  MEYS
  MOIRE
  MONTROMANT
  MONTROTTIER
  MORANCE
  NEUVILLE-SUR-SAONE
  LES OLMES
  ORLIENAS
  OULLINS
  POLEYMIEUX-AU-MONT-D’OR
  POLLIONNAY
  POMEYS
  POMMIERS
  PONTCHARRA-SUR-TURDINE
  PORTE DES PIERRES DOREES
  QUINCIEUX
  RIVOLET
  ROCHETAILLEE-SUR-SAONE
  RONTALON
  SAIN-BEL
  SARCEY
  LES SAUVAGES
  SAVIGNY
  SOUCIEU-EN-JARREST
  SOURCIEUX-LES-MINES
  SOUZY
  SAINT-ANDRE-LA-COTE
  SAINT-APPOLINAIRE
  SAINT-CLEMENT-LES-PLACES
  SAINT-CLEMENT-SUR-VALSONNE
  SAINTE-CONSORCE
  SAINT-CYR-AU-MONT-D’OR
  SAINT-DIDIER-AU-MONT-D’OR
  SAINT-FORGEUX
  SAINTE-FOY-L’ARGENTIERE
  SAINTE-FOY-LES-LYON
  SAINT-GENIS-L’ARGENTIERE
  SAINT-GENIS-LAVAL
  SAINT-GENIS-LES-OLLIERES
  SAINT-GERMAIN-AU-MONT-D’OR
  SAINT-GERMAIN-NUELLES
  SAINT-JEAN-DES-VIGNES
  SAINT-JULIEN-SUR-BIBOST
  SAINT-JUST-D’AVRAY
  SAINT-LAURENT-D’AGNY
  SAINT-LAURENT-DE-CHAMOUSSET
  SAINT-LOUP
  SAINT-MARCEL-L’ECLAIRE
  SAINT-MARTIN-EN-HAUT
  SAINTE-PAULE
  SAINT-PIERRE-LA-PALUD
  SAINT-ROMAIN-AU-MONT-D’OR
  SAINT-ROMAIN-DE-POPEY
  SAINT-VERAND
  TARARE
  TASSIN-LA-DEMI-LUNE
  TERNAND
  THEIZE
  THURINS
  LA TOUR-DE-SALVAGNY
  VALSONNE
  VAUGNERAY
  VILLECHENEVE
  VILLEFRANCHE-SUR-SAONE
  VILLE-SUR-JARNIOUX
  YZERON | 27.1.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Deux – Sèvres (79) |
| BOUSSAIS
  GLENAY
  LUZAY
  MAISONTIERS
  PIERREFITE
  SAINTE-GEMME
  SAINT-VARENT | 28.1.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vendée (85) |
| AUCHAY SUR VENDEE
  BESSAY
  BOURNEZEAU
  CHÂTEAU GUIBERT
  CORPE
  FONTENAY LE COMTE
  FOUGERE
  L’HERMANAULT
  LA COUTURE
  LE LANGON
  LE TABLIER
  LES MAGNILS REIGNIERS
  LES VELLUIRE SUR VENDEE
  LONGEVES
  LUCON
  MAREUIL SUR LAY DISSAIS
  MOUZEUIL SAINT MARTIN
  NALLIERS
  PEAULT
  PETOSSE
  POUILLE
  RIVE DE L’YON
  ROSNAY
  SAINT AUBIN LA PLAINE
  SAINT ETIENNE DE BRILLOUET
  SAINT JEAN DE BEUGNE
  SAINTE GEMME LA PLAINE
  SAINTE PEXINE
  SERIGNE
  THIRE | 2.2.2023 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vienne (86) |
| BENASSAY
  CELLE LEVESCAULT
  CHATILLON
  CLOUE
  COUHE
  COULOMBIERS
  LA CHAPELLE MONTREUIL
  LAVAUSSEAU
  LUSIGNAN
  PAYRE | 15.2.2023 |

Area comprising:

Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Creuse (23)

CLAIRAVAUX

LA COURTINE

CROZE

LIOUX-LES-MONGES

LE MAS-D’ARTIGE

MAUTES

LA MAZIÈRE-AUX-BONS-HOMMES

MERINCHAL

MOUTIER-ROZEILLE

NÉOUX

PONTCHARRAUD

POUSSANGES

SAINT-AVIT-DE-TARDES

SAINT-BARD

SAINTE-FEYRE-LA-MONTAGNE

SAINT-FRION

SAINT-ORADOUX-PRÈS-CROCQ

SAINT-PARDOUX-D’ARNET

LA VILLENEUVE

LA VILLETELLE

17.1.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Dordogne (24)

LES COTEAUX PERIGOURDINS

DOMME

CAZOULES

FANLAC

LFLEURAC

PEYZAC-LE-MOUSTIER

PEYRILLAC-ET-MILLAC

SAINT-JULIEN-DE-LAMPON

SAINT-VINCENT-DE-COSSE

LA ROQUE-GAGEAC

CARSAC-AILLAC

LES EYZIES-DE-TAYAC-SIREUIL

CONDAT-SUR-VEZERE

VITRAC

BEYNAC-ET-CAZENAC

GROLEJAC

SAINTE-MONDANE

LA FEUILLADE

SERGEAC

THONAC

BEAUREGARD-DE-TERRASSON

PLAZAC

PAZAYAC

TURSAC

LES FARGES

CALVIAC-EN-PERIGORD

BARS

LA BACHELLERIE

VEYRIGNAC

CARLUX

AURIAC-DU-PERIGORD

SAINT-LEON-SUR-VEZERE

CASTELS ET BEZENAC

LE LARDIN-SAINT-LAZARE

MEYRALS

VEZAC

TERRASSON-LAVILLEDIEU

27.1.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Gers (32)

ARBLADE-LE-BAS

ARBLADE-LE-HAUT

ARMENTIEUX

ARMOUS-ET-CAU

BARCELONNE-DU-GERS

BASCOUS

BASSOUES

BAZIAN

BELMONT

BOURROUILLAN

CAILLAVET

CALLIAN

CASTELNAU-D’ANGLES

CAUMONT

CAUPENNE-D’ARMAGNAC

CAZAUX-D’ANGLES

COURTIES

EAUZE

JU-BELLOC

JUILLAC

LABARTHETE

LADEVEZE-RIVIERE

LADEVEZE-VILLE

LANNE-SOUBIRAN

LANNEPAX

LAUJUZAN

LAVERAET

LELIN-LAPUJOLLE

LUPPE-VIOLLES

MAGNAN

MANCIET

MARCIAC

MASCARAS

MAULICHERES

MAUMUSSON-LAGUIAN

MONTESQUIOU

NOGARO

NOULENS

PANJAS

PERCHEDE

PEYRUSSE-GRANDE

PRENERON

RAMOUZENS

RIGUEPEU

RISCLE

ROQUEBRUNE

SAINT-AUNIX-LENGROS

SAINT-GERME

SAINT-GRIEDE

SAINT-MONT

SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D’ARMAGNAC

SALLES-D’ARMAGNAC

SCIEURAC-ET-FLOURES

TARSAC

TIESTE-URAGNOUX

TOURDUN

TUDELLE

VERGOIGNAN

VIC-FEZENSAC

VIELLA

6.2.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Indre (36)

AIZE

BAGNEUX Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D25

BAUDRES

BOUGES-LE-CHATEAU Partie de commune située au Nord de la D2, puis de la D34A

BUXEUIL

FONTGUENAND Partie de commune située au Sud de la D52

GUILLY

LANGE

POULAINES Partie de commune située au Nord de D960

ROUVRES LES BOIS

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-EN-BAZELLE partie de commune située au Sud-Ouest de D25

SEMBLECAY Partie de commune située au Sud de D25

VALENCAY Partie de commune située au Nord-Ouest du Nahon

VAL-FOUZON

VEUIL

VICQ-SUR-NAHON Partie de commune située à l’Ouest de la D956 et au Sud de la D109

ANJOUIN

BAGNEUX Partie de commune à l’Est de D25

BOUGES-LE-CHATEAU Partie de commune au Sud de D2 puis de D34A

BRETAGNE

CHABRIS

LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-LAURIAN

DUN-LE-POELIER

ECUEILLE Partie de la commune au Sud de D13et à l’Est de D8

FONTENAY

FONTGUENAND Partie de commune au Nord de la D52

FREDILLE

GEHEE

HEUGNES Partie de commune à l’Est de la voie ferrée

JEU-MALOCHES

LEVROUX

LINIEZ

LUCAY-LE-MALE

LYE

MENETOU-SUR-NAHON

MEUNET-SUR-VATAN

MOULINS-SUR-CEPHONS

ORVILLE

REBOURSIN

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-EN-BAZELLE Partie de commune au Nord Est de la D25

SAINT-FLORENTIN

SELLES-SUR-NAHON

SEMBLECAY partie de commune au Nord de D25

VATAN

LA VERNELLE

VEUIL

VILLENTROIS FAVEROLLES EN BERRY

26.1.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Manche (50)

ANNEVILLE-EN-SAIRE

AUDOUVILLE-LA-HUBERT

AUMEVILLE-LESTRE

AZEVILLE

BARFLEUR

BESNEVILLE

BEUZEVILLE-LA-BASTILLE

BINIVILLE

BLOSVILLE

BRETTEVILLE

BREUVILLE

BRICQUEBEC-EN-COTENTIN

BRICQUEBOSQ

BRILLEVAST

BRIX

CANTELOUP

CARNEVILLE

CARQUEBUT

CATTEVILLE

CHERBOURG-EN-COTENTIN

CLITOURPS

COLOMBY

COUVILLE

CRASVILLE

CROSVILLE-SUR-DOUVE

DIGOSVILLE

ECAUSSEVILLE

EMONDEVILLE

EROUDEVILLE

ETIENVILLE

FERMANVILLE

FIERVILLE-LES-MINES

FLOTTEMANVILLE

FONTENAY-SUR-MER

FRESVILLE

GATTEVILLE-LE-Phare

GOLLEVILLE

GONNEVILLE-LE THEIL

GROSVILLE

HARDINVAST

HAUTTEVILLE-BOCAGE

HEMEVEZ

HUBERVILLE

JOGANVILLE

L’ETANG-BERTRAND

LA BONNEVILLE

LA HAGUE

LA PERNELLE

LE HAM

LE MESNIL-AU-VAL

LE VAST

LE VICEL

LESTRE

LIEUSAINT

MAGNEVILLE

MARTINVAST

MAUPERTUS-SUR-MER

MONTAIGU-LA-BRISETTE

MONTEBOURG

MONTFARVILLE

MORSALINES

MORVILLE

NEGREVILLE

NEHOU

NEUVILLE-AU-PLAIN

NOUAINVILLE

OCTEVILLE-L’AVENEL

ORGLANDES

OZEVILLE

PICAUVILLE

QUETTEHOU

QUINEVILLE

RAUVILLE-LA-BIGOT

RAUVILLE-LA-PLACE

RAVENOVILLE

REIGNEVILLE-BOCAGE

REVILLE

ROCHEVILLE

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-FOC

SAINT-CYR

SAINT-FLOXEL

SAINT-GERMAIN-DE-TOURNEBUT

SAINT-GERMAIN-DE-VARREVILLE

SAINT-JACQUES-DE-NEHOU

SAINT-JOSEPH

SAINT-MARCOUF

SAINT-MARTIN-D’AUDOUVILLE

SAINT-MARTIN-DE-VARREVILLE

SAINT-MARTIN-LE-GREARD

SAINT-PIERRE-D’ARTHEGLISE

SAINT-PIERRE-EGLISE

SAINT-SAUVEUR-LE-VICOMTE

SAINT-VAAST-LA-HOUGUE

SAINTE-COLOMBE

SAINTE-GENEVIEVE

SAINTE-MERE-EGLISE

SAUSSEMESNIL

SEBEVILLE

SIDEVILLE

SORTOSVILLE

SORTOSVILLE-EN-BEAUMONT

SOTTEVAST

TAILLEPIED

TAMERVILLE

TEURTHEVILLE-BOCAGE

TEURTHEVILLE-HAGUE

THEVILLE

TOCQUEVILLE

TOLLEVAST

TURQUEVILLE

URVILLE

VALCANVILLE

VALOGNES

VARENGUEBEC

VAROUVILLE

VAUDREVILLE

VICQ-SUR-MER

VIDECOSVILLE

VIRANDEVILLE

YVETOT-BOCAGE

ANNEVILLE-EN-SAIRE

28.1.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Puy-de-Dôme (63)

BOURG-LASTIC

BRIFFONS

LA CELLE

CONDAT-EN-COMBRAILLE

HERMENT

LASTIC

MESSEIX

PUY-SAINT-GULMIER

SAINT-AVIT

SAINT-ETIENNE-DES-CHAMPS

SAINT-GERMAIN-PRES-HERMENT

SAUVAGNAT

VOINGT

17.2.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64)

ARROSES

AYDIE

CROUSEILLES

AUBOUS

AURIONS IDERNES

BETRACQ

CONCHEZ DE BEARN

DIUSSE

LASSERRE

MONPEZAT

MONT DISSE

PORTET

6.2.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65)

ADE

ANDREST

ANTIN

ARCIZAC-ADOUR

ARCIZAC-EZ-ANGLES

ARGELES-BAGNERES

ARNE

ARRODETS-EZ-ANGLES

ARRODETS

ASQUE

ASTE

ASTUGUE

AURENSAN

AURIEBAT

AVERAN

AVEZAC-PRAT-LAHITTE

AZEREIX

BAGNERES-DE-BIGORRE

BANIOS

BARRY

LA BARTHE-DE-NESTE

BATSERE

BAZET

BAZILLAC

BEAUDEAN

BENAC

BENQUE-MOLERE

BERNADETS-DEBAT

BETPOUY

BETTES

BONREPOS

BORDERES-SUR-L’ECHEZ

BOUILH-DEVANT

BOUILH-PEREUILH

BOURG-DE-BIGORRE

BOURREAC

BOURS

BULAN

CAMPAN

CAMPISTROUS

CAMPUZAN

CAPVERN

CASTELBAJAC

CASTELNAU-RIVIERE-BASSE

CASTERA-LOU

CAUBOUS

CAUSSADE-RIVIERE

CHELLE-DEBAT

CHIS

CLARENS

COLLONGUES

DOURS

ESCALA

ESCONDEAUX

ESCONNETS

ESCOTS

ESCOUBES-POUTS

ESPARROS

ESPECHE

ESPIEILH

ESTIRAC

FONTRAILLES

FRECHEDE

FRECHENDETS

GALAN

GALEZ

GAUSSAN

GAYAN

GERDE

GERMS-SUR-L’OUSSOUET

GEZ-EZ-ANGLES

GONEZ

HAGEDET

HAUBAN

HERES

HIBARETTE

HIIS

HORGUES

HOUEYDETS

IBOS

IZAUX

JACQUE

JUILLAN

JULOS

LABASSERE

LABASTIDE

LABATUT-RIVIERE

LABORDE

LACASSAGNE

LAGARDE

LAGRANGE

ARRAYOU-LAHITTE

LALANNE-TRIE

LALOUBERE

LAMARQUE-RUSTAING

LAMEAC

LANNE

LANNEMEZAN

LAPEYRE

LARAN

LASCAZERES

LAYRISSE

LESCURRY

LEZIGNAN

LIBAROS

LIES

LOMNE

LORTET

LOUCRUP

LOUEY

LOUIT

LUBRET-SAINT-LUC

LUBY-BETMONT

LUSTAR

MADIRAN

MANSAN

MARSAC

MARSAS

MARSEILLAN

MAUBOURGUET

MAZEROLLES

MOMERES

MONLONG

MONTOUSSE

MOUMOULOUS

MUN

NEUILH

ODOS

OLEAC-DEBAT

ORDIZAN

ORINCLES

ORLEIX

OSMETS

OSSUN

OSSUN-EZ-ANGLES

OURSBELILLE

PAREAC

PEYRUN

PINAS

POUZAC

PUYDARRIEUX

RECURT

REJAUMONT

SABALOS

SABARROS

SADOURNIN

SAINT-LANNE

SAINT-MARTIN

SAINT-SEVER-DE-RUSTAN

SARLABOUS

SARNIGUET

SENAC

SENTOUS

SIARROUY

SOREAC

SOUBLECAUSE

TAJAN

TARBES

TILHOUSE

TOSTAT

TOURNOUS-DARRE

TOURNOUS-DEVANT

TREBONS

TRIE-SUR-BAISE

TROULEY-LABARTHE

TUZAGUET

UGLAS

UGNOUAS

UZER

VIDOU

VIEUZOS

VILLEFRANQUE

VILLEMBITS

VILLENAVE-PRES-MARSAC

VISKER

CANTAOUS

23.1.2023

VILLEFRANQUE

LABATUT RIVIERE

CASTELNAU RIVIERE BASSE

ESTIRAC

HAGEDET

MAUBOURGUET

CAUSSADE-RIVIERE

SAINT LANNE

AURIEBAT

MADIRAN

SOUBLECAUSE

LASCAZERES

HERES

6.2.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Rhône (69)

AFFOUX

ALBIGNY-SUR-SAONE

ALIX

AMBERIEUX

AMPLEPUIS

ANCY

ANSE

L’ARBRESLE

AVEIZE

BAGNOLS

BELMONT-D’AZERGUES

BESSENAY

BIBOST

VAL D’OINGT

LE BREUIL

BRIGNAIS

BRINDAS

BRULLIOLES

BRUSSIEU

BULLY

CALUIRE-ET-CUIRE

CHAMBOST-ALLIERES

CHAMBOST-LONGESSAIGNE

CHAMELET

CHAMPAGNE-AU-MONT-D’OR

LA CHAPELLE-SUR-COISE

CHAPONOST

CHARBONNIERES-LES-BAINS

CHARNAY

CHASSELAY

CHATILLON

CHAUSSAN

CHAZAY-D’AZERGUES

LES CHERES

CHESSY

CHEVINAY

CIVRIEUX-D’AZERGUES

COGNY

COLLONGES-AU-MONT-D’OR

COURZIEU

COUZON-AU-MONT-D’OR

CRAPONNE

CURIS-AU-MONT-D’OR

DARDILLY

DAREIZE

DENICE

DIEME

DOMMARTIN

DUERNE

ECULLY

EVEUX

FLEURIEUX-SUR-L’ARBRESLE

FRANCHEVILLE

FRONTENAS

GENAY

GLEIZE

GREZIEU-LA-VARENNE

GREZIEU-LE-MARCHE

LES HALLES

HAUTE-RIVOIRE

JARNIOUX

JOUX

LACENAS

LACHASSAGNE

LEGNY

LENTILLY

LETRA

LIMAS

LIMONEST

LISSIEU

LONGESSAIGNE

LOZANNE

LUCENAY

LYON

MARCILLY-D’AZERGUES

MARCY

MARCY-L’ETOILE

MESSIMY

MEYS

MOIRE

MONTROMANT

MONTROTTIER

MORANCE

NEUVILLE-SUR-SAONE

LES OLMES

ORLIENAS

OULLINS

POLEYMIEUX-AU-MONT-D’OR

POLLIONNAY

POMEYS

POMMIERS

PONTCHARRA-SUR-TURDINE

PORTE DES PIERRES DOREES

QUINCIEUX

RIVOLET

ROCHETAILLEE-SUR-SAONE

RONTALON

SAIN-BEL

SARCEY

LES SAUVAGES

SAVIGNY

SOUCIEU-EN-JARREST

SOURCIEUX-LES-MINES

SOUZY

SAINT-ANDRE-LA-COTE

SAINT-APPOLINAIRE

SAINT-CLEMENT-LES-PLACES

SAINT-CLEMENT-SUR-VALSONNE

SAINTE-CONSORCE

SAINT-CYR-AU-MONT-D’OR

SAINT-DIDIER-AU-MONT-D’OR

SAINT-FORGEUX

SAINTE-FOY-L’ARGENTIERE

SAINTE-FOY-LES-LYON

SAINT-GENIS-L’ARGENTIERE

SAINT-GENIS-LAVAL

SAINT-GENIS-LES-OLLIERES

SAINT-GERMAIN-AU-MONT-D’OR

SAINT-GERMAIN-NUELLES

SAINT-JEAN-DES-VIGNES

SAINT-JULIEN-SUR-BIBOST

SAINT-JUST-D’AVRAY

SAINT-LAURENT-D’AGNY

SAINT-LAURENT-DE-CHAMOUSSET

SAINT-LOUP

SAINT-MARCEL-L’ECLAIRE

SAINT-MARTIN-EN-HAUT

SAINTE-PAULE

SAINT-PIERRE-LA-PALUD

SAINT-ROMAIN-AU-MONT-D’OR

SAINT-ROMAIN-DE-POPEY

SAINT-VERAND

TARARE

TASSIN-LA-DEMI-LUNE

TERNAND

THEIZE

THURINS

LA TOUR-DE-SALVAGNY

VALSONNE

VAUGNERAY

VILLECHENEVE

VILLEFRANCHE-SUR-SAONE

VILLE-SUR-JARNIOUX

YZERON

27.1.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Deux – Sèvres (79)

BOUSSAIS

GLENAY

LUZAY

MAISONTIERS

PIERREFITE

SAINTE-GEMME

SAINT-VARENT

28.1.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vendée (85)

AUCHAY SUR VENDEE

BESSAY

BOURNEZEAU

CHÂTEAU GUIBERT

CORPE

FONTENAY LE COMTE

FOUGERE

L’HERMANAULT

LA COUTURE

LE LANGON

LE TABLIER

LES MAGNILS REIGNIERS

LES VELLUIRE SUR VENDEE

LONGEVES

LUCON

MAREUIL SUR LAY DISSAIS

MOUZEUIL SAINT MARTIN

NALLIERS

PEAULT

PETOSSE

POUILLE

RIVE DE L’YON

ROSNAY

SAINT AUBIN LA PLAINE

SAINT ETIENNE DE BRILLOUET

SAINT JEAN DE BEUGNE

SAINTE GEMME LA PLAINE

SAINTE PEXINE

SERIGNE

THIRE

2.2.2023

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vienne (86)

BENASSAY

CELLE LEVESCAULT

CHATILLON

CLOUE

COUHE

COULOMBIERS

LA CHAPELLE MONTREUIL

LAVAUSSEAU

LUSIGNAN

PAYRE

15.2.2023

Member State: Italy

| Area comprising: | Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a |
| --- | --- |
| Region: Lombardia |
| — | Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia) |

Area comprising:

Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a

Region: Lombardia

—

Municipality of Acquafredda (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Alfianello (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgo San Giacomo (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Calvisano (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Carpenedolo (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Cigole (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cigole (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (Brescia) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Fiesse (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Gambara (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gambara (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ghedi (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gottolengo (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Isorella (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isorella (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Leno (Brescia) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Leno (Brescia) East of A21

| — | Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lonato del Garda (Brescia) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Manerbio (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Milzano (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Milzano (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montichiari (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Offlaga (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Orzinuovi (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pavone del Mella (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pontevico (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzolengo (Brescia) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pralboino (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Quinzano d’Oglio (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Quinzano d’Oglio (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Remedello (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Remedello (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Paolo (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Seniga (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Seniga (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verolanuova (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verolavecchia (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villachiara (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Visano (Brescia) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Visano (Brescia)

| — | Municipality of Annicco (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Annicco (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Azzanello (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Azzanello (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Bordolano (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bordolano (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Casalbuttano ed Uniti (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casalbuttano ed Uniti (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Casalmorano (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casalmorano (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Castelverde (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelverde (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Castelvisconti (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelvisconti (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Corte de’ Cortesi con Cignone (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Corte de’ Cortesi con Cignone (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Corte de’ Frati (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Corte de’ Frati (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Genivolta (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Genivolta (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Olmeneta (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Olmeneta (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Paderno Ponchielli (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Paderno Ponchielli (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Pozzaglio ed Uniti (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzaglio ed Uniti (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Robecco d’Oglio (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Robecco d’Oglio (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Soresina (Cremona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Soresina (Cremona)

| — | Municipality of Acquanegra sul Chiese (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Acquanegra sul Chiese (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Asola (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Asola (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Canneto sull’Oglio (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Canneto sull’Oglio (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Casalmoro (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casalmoro (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Casaloldo (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casaloldo (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Casalromano (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casalromano (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Castel Goffredo (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castel Goffredo (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Castelbelforte (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelbelforte (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Castellucchio (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castellucchio (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Castiglione delle Stiviere (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castiglione delle Stiviere (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Cavriana (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cavriana (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Ceresara (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ceresara (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Curtatone (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Curtatone (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Gazoldo degli Ippoliti (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gazoldo degli Ippoliti (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Goito (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Goito (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Guidizzolo (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Guidizzolo (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Mantova (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mantova (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Marcaria (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Marcaria (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Mariana Mantovana (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mariana Mantovana (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Marmirolo (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Marmirolo (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Medole (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Medole (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Monzambano (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monzambano (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Piubega (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Piubega (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Ponti sul Mincio (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ponti sul Mincio (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Porto Mantovano (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Porto Mantovano (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Redondesco (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Redondesco (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Rodigo (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rodigo (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Roverbella (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roverbella (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of San Giorgio Bigarello (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giorgio Bigarello (Mantova) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Solferino (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Solferino (Mantova)

| — | Municipality of Volta Mantovana (Mantova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Volta Mantovana (Mantova)

31.1.2023

Region: Veneto

Municipality of Arquà Petrarca (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Baone (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Baone (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Barbona (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Barbona (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Borgo Veneto (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgo Veneto (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Carceri (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Carceri (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Casale di Scodosia (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casale di Scodosia (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Castelbaldo (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelbaldo (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Cervarese Santa Croce (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cervarese Santa Croce (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Cinto Euganeo (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cinto Euganeo (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Este (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Este (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Galzignano Terme (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Galzignano Terme (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Granze (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Granze (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Lozzo Atestino (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lozzo Atestino (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Masi (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Masi (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Megliadino San Vitale (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Megliadino San Vitale (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Merlara (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Merlara (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Mestrino (Padova) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mestrino (Padova) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Monselice (Padova) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monselice (Padova) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Montagnana (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montagnana (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Ospedaletto Euganeo (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ospedaletto Euganeo (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Piacenza d’Adige (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Piacenza d’Adige (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Ponso (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ponso (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Pozzonovo (Padova) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzonovo (Padova) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Rovolon (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rovolon (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Rubano (Padova) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rubano (Padova) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Saccolongo (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Saccolongo (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Sant’Elena (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sant’Elena (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Sant’Urbano (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sant’Urbano (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Solesino (Padova) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Solesino (Padova) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Stanghella (Padova) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Stanghella (Padova) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Teolo (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Teolo (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Torreglia (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torreglia (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Urbana (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Urbana (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Veggiano (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Veggiano (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Vescovana (Padova) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vescovana (Padova) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Vighizzolo d’Este (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vighizzolo d’Este (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Villa Estense (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villa Estense (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Villafranca Padovana (Padova) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villafranca Padovana (Padova) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Vo’ (Padova) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vo’ (Padova)

| — | Municipality of Albaredo d’Adige (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Albaredo d’Adige (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Angiari (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Angiari (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Arcole (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Arcole (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Belfiore (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Belfiore (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Bevilacqua (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bevilacqua (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Bonavigo (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bonavigo (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Boschi Sant’Anna (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Boschi Sant’Anna (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Bovolone (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bovolone (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Buttapietra (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Buttapietra (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Caldiero (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Caldiero (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Casaleone (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casaleone (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Castagnaro (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castagnaro (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Castel d’Azzano (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castel d’Azzano (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Cerea (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cerea (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Cologna Veneta (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cologna Veneta (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Colognola ai Colli (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Colognola ai Colli (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Concamarise (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Concamarise (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Erbè (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Erbè (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Gazzo Veronese (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gazzo Veronese (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Isola della Scala (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isola della Scala (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Isola Rizza (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isola Rizza (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Lavagno (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lavagno (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Legnago (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Legnago (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Minerbe (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Minerbe (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Monteforte d’Alpone (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monteforte d’Alpone (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Mozzecane (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mozzecane (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Nogara (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nogara (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Nogarole Rocca (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nogarole Rocca (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Oppeano (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Oppeano (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Palù (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Palù (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Peschiera del Garda (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Peschiera del Garda (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Povegliano Veronese (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Povegliano Veronese (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Pressana (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pressana (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Ronco all’Adige (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ronco all’Adige (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Roverchiara (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roverchiara (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Roveredo di Guá (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roveredo di Guá (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Salizzole (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Salizzole (Verona)

| — | Municipality of San Bonifacio (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Bonifacio (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of San Giovanni Lupatoto (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giovanni Lupatoto (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of San Martino Buon Albergo (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Martino Buon Albergo (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of San Pietro di Morubio (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Pietro di Morubio (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Sanguinetto (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sanguinetto (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Soave (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Soave (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Sommacampagna (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sommacampagna (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Sona (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sona (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Sorgá (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sorgá (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Terrazzo (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Terrazzo (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Trevenzuolo (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Trevenzuolo (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Valeggio sul Mincio (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Valeggio sul Mincio (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Verona (Verona) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verona (Verona) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Veronella (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Veronella (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Vigasio (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vigasio (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Villa Bartolomea (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villa Bartolomea (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Villafranca di Verona (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villafranca di Verona (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Zevio (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Zevio (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Zimella (Verona) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Zimella (Verona)

| — | Municipality of Agugliaro (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Agugliaro (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Albettone (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Albettone (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Alonte (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Alonte (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Altavilla Vicentina (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Altavilla Vicentina (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Arcugnano (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Arcugnano (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Asigliano Veneto (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Asigliano Veneto (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Barbarano Mossano (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Barbarano Mossano (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Brendola (Vicenza) East of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Brendola (Vicenza) East of A4

| — | Municipality of Campiglia dei Berici (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Campiglia dei Berici (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Castegnero (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castegnero (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Gambellara (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gambellara (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Grisignano di Zocco (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grisignano di Zocco (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Grumolo delle Abbadesse (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grumolo delle Abbadesse (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Longare (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Longare (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Lonigo (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lonigo (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Montebello Vicentino (Vicenza) East of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montebello Vicentino (Vicenza) East of A4

| — | Municipality of Montecchio Maggiore (Vicenza) East of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montecchio Maggiore (Vicenza) East of A4

| — | Municipality of Montegalda (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montegalda (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Montegaldella (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montegaldella (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Nanto (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nanto (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Noventa Vicentina (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Noventa Vicentina (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Orgiano (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Orgiano (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Pojana Maggiore (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pojana Maggiore (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Sarego (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sarego (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Sossano (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sossano (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Torri di Quartesolo (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torri di Quartesolo (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Val Liona (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Val Liona (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Vicenza (Vicenza) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vicenza (Vicenza) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Villaga (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villaga (Vicenza)

| — | Municipality of Zovencedo (Vicenza) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Zovencedo (Vicenza)

31.1.2023

| * | In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Protocol, for the purposes of this Annex, references to Member State include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

*

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/217

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2023/234

of 1 February 2023

granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the Presentation Notification related to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union

(notified under document C(2023) 662)

(Only the Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 6(4) in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,

After consulting the Customs Code Committee,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements.

| (2) | Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility for the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility for the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time.

| (3) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and dates of deployment for the Presentation Notification (‘PN’) in accordance with Articles 6(1), Articles 16 and 139 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and dates of deployment for the Presentation Notification (‘PN’) in accordance with Articles 6(1), Articles 16 and 139 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.

| (4) | Furthermore, Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the presentation notification in relation to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Furthermore, Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the presentation notification in relation to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union.

| (5) | Due to the significance of the PN System in the supervision of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union, some Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage such notifications, for example through port community systems. Such systems require adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Due to the significance of the PN System in the supervision of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union, some Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage such notifications, for example through port community systems. Such systems require adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022.

| (6) | However, three major and partially unforeseen developments arose all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to, the resources of customs authorities: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria and Poland. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

However, three major and partially unforeseen developments arose all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to, the resources of customs authorities: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria and Poland. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia.

| (7) | Those specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented certain Member States from completing the deployment of IT means for the processing of the Presentation Notification by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 23 May 2022 Slovenia, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Slovakia, on 4 July 2022 the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022 Estonia, on 7 July 2022 Poland, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 19 July 2022 Croatia, on 22 July 2022 Hungary, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, on 10 October 2022 Czechia and on 17 October 2022 Romania, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Those specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented certain Member States from completing the deployment of IT means for the processing of the Presentation Notification by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 23 May 2022 Slovenia, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Slovakia, on 4 July 2022 the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022 Estonia, on 7 July 2022 Poland, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 19 July 2022 Croatia, on 22 July 2022 Hungary, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, on 10 October 2022 Czechia and on 17 October 2022 Romania, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.

| (8) | It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to continue using their existing procedures, including the relevant IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out by Member States as provided for in Article 2(4), second subparagraph, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) for a limited period. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to continue using their existing procedures, including the relevant IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out by Member States as provided for in Article 2(4), second subparagraph, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) for a limited period.

| (9) | Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of the electronic system for presentation notification as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of the electronic system for presentation notification as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured.

| (10) | In order to prevent the invalidation of the entry summary declaration in accordance with Article 129(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 within 200 days after the lodgement, even if the goods covered by that entry summary declaration were presented to customs in a Member State benefiting from the derogation, that Member State should store the data required for the presentation notification in its records and communicate them to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (4) (ICS2) within that deadline. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In order to prevent the invalidation of the entry summary declaration in accordance with Article 129(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 within 200 days after the lodgement, even if the goods covered by that entry summary declaration were presented to customs in a Member State benefiting from the derogation, that Member State should store the data required for the presentation notification in its records and communicate them to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (4) (ICS2) within that deadline.

| (11) | Having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments for the processing of the presentation notification in Member States, the current state of those developments in Member States and the need to avoid any further significant delays, the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of goods entering the customs territory of the Union by air, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of goods entering the customs territory of the Union by other modes of transport, |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments for the processing of the presentation notification in Member States, the current state of those developments in Member States and the need to avoid any further significant delays, the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of goods entering the customs territory of the Union by air, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of goods entering the customs territory of the Union by other modes of transport,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   Member States may use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques for the presentation notification required by Article 139 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, of goods brought into the customs territory by air until 31 December 2023 and for the presentation notification of goods brought into the customs territory by other modes of transport until 29 February 2024, provided that the use of means other than electronic data-processing techniques does not affect the exchange of information between the Member State and other Member States or the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purpose of the application of the customs legislation.

2.   For the purpose of complying with the condition provided for in paragraph 1, Member States shall store the data required for the presentation notification in their records and communicate them within the deadline of 200 days referred to in Article 129(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 to the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (ICS2) if an entry summary declaration was lodged in that electronic system in respect of the goods subject to the presentation notification.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2023 until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by other modes of transport.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2023.

For the Commission

Paolo GENTILONI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 of 13 December 2019 establishing the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 168).

2

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1).

3

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).

4

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/220 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/220

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2023/235

of 1 February 2023

granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the notification of arrival of a sea-going vessel or of an aircraft

(notified under document C(2023) 663)

(Only the Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 6(4) in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,

After consulting the Customs Code Committee,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements.

| (2) | Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility of the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility of the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time.

| (3) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and deployment window for the notification of arrival in accordance with Article 6(1), Articles 16 and 133 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and deployment window for the notification of arrival in accordance with Article 6(1), Articles 16 and 133 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.

| (4) | Furthermore, Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the notification of arrival in relation to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Furthermore, Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the notification of arrival in relation to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union.

| (5) | Due to the significance of the notification of arrival in the supervision of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union, some Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage such notifications, for example through port community systems. Such systems require adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Due to the significance of the notification of arrival in the supervision of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union, some Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage such notifications, for example through port community systems. Such systems require adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022.

| (6) | However, three major and partially unforeseen circumstances have arisen, all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to, the resources of Member States: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria and Poland. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

However, three major and partially unforeseen circumstances have arisen, all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to, the resources of Member States: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria and Poland. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia.

| (7) | Those specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented certain Member States from completing the deployment of IT means for the processing of the notification of arrival by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 23 May 2022 Slovenia, on 3 June 2022 Bulgaria, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Slovakia, on 4 July 2022 the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022 Estonia, on 7 July 2022 Poland, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 19 July 2022 Croatia, on 22 July 2022 Hungary, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, on 10 October 2022 Czechia and on 17 October 2022 Romania, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. In compliance with Article 6(4), third subparagraph, such derogations will not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purposes of the application of the customs legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Those specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented certain Member States from completing the deployment of IT means for the processing of the notification of arrival by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 23 May 2022 Slovenia, on 3 June 2022 Bulgaria, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Slovakia, on 4 July 2022 the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022 Estonia, on 7 July 2022 Poland, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 19 July 2022 Croatia, on 22 July 2022 Hungary, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, on 10 October 2022 Czechia and on 17 October 2022 Romania, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. In compliance with Article 6(4), third subparagraph, such derogations will not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purposes of the application of the customs legislation.

| (8) | It is therefore appropriate to allow those Member States to continue using their existing IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out by Member States as provided for in Article 2(4), second subparagraph, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) for a limited period. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

It is therefore appropriate to allow those Member States to continue using their existing IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out by Member States as provided for in Article 2(4), second subparagraph, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) for a limited period.

| (9) | Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of the electronic system for notification of arrival as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of the electronic system for notification of arrival as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured.

| (10) | This decision is to be without prejudice to the obligation of an aircraft operator, pursuant to Article 43(1)(c) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/414 (4) to submit via the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (5) (‘ICS2’) the particulars required for the notification of arrival set out in Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and in Annex B to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 once it has established a connection to that system within the deployment window set for Release 2 of that system in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

This decision is to be without prejudice to the obligation of an aircraft operator, pursuant to Article 43(1)(c) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/414 (4) to submit via the electronic system referred to in Article 182 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (5) (‘ICS2’) the particulars required for the notification of arrival set out in Annex B to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 and in Annex B to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 once it has established a connection to that system within the deployment window set for Release 2 of that system in Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151.

| (11) | Having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments for the processing of the notification of arrival in Member States, the current state of those developments in Member States and the need to avoid any further significant delays, the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of an aircraft entering the customs territory of the Union, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of a sea-going vessel entering the customs territory of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments for the processing of the notification of arrival in Member States, the current state of those developments in Member States and the need to avoid any further significant delays, the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of an aircraft entering the customs territory of the Union, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of a sea-going vessel entering the customs territory of the Union.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Member States may use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques for the notification of arrival required by Article 133 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of an aircraft until 31 December 2023 and for the notification of arrival of a sea-going vessel until 29 February 2024.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2023 until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of an aircraft entering the customs territory of the Union, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of a sea-going vessel entering the customs territory of the Union.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2023.

For the Commission

Paolo GENTILONI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 of 13 December 2019 establishing the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 168).

2

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1).

3

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/414 of 8 March 2021 on technical arrangements for developing, maintaining and employing electronic systems for the exchange and storage of information under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, C/2021/1454, OJ L 81, 9.3.2021, p. 37.

4

(5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).

5

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/223

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2023/236

of 1 February 2023

granting a derogation requested by certain Member States pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information for the Temporary Storage declaration related to non-Union goods presented to customs

(notified under document C(2023) 664)

(Only the Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovakian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 6(4) in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,

After consulting the Customs Code Committee,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements.

| (2) | Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility for the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility for the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time.

| (3) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and deployment window for the Temporary Storage (‘TS’) declarations in accordance with Articles 6(1), Articles 16, 145 and 146 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and deployment window for the Temporary Storage (‘TS’) declarations in accordance with Articles 6(1), Articles 16, 145 and 146 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.

| (4) | Furthermore, Article 278(2)(a), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the temporary storage declaration. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Furthermore, Article 278(2)(a), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the temporary storage declaration.

| (5) | Due to the significance of the TS in the supervision of goods entering the customs territory of the EU, some Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage such TS declarations. Such systems require adjustments in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Due to the significance of the TS in the supervision of goods entering the customs territory of the EU, some Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage such TS declarations. Such systems require adjustments in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022.

| (6) | However three major and partially unforeseen circumstances have arisen, all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to, the resources of Member States: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria, Lithuania and Poland. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

However three major and partially unforeseen circumstances have arisen, all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to, the resources of Member States: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria, Lithuania and Poland. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia.

| (7) | Those specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented certain Member States from completing the deployment of IT means for the processing of the TS declarations by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 3 May 2022 Lithuania, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 23 May 2022 Slovenia, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Slovakia, on 4 July 2022 the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022 Estonia, on 7 July 2022 Poland, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 19 July 2022 Croatia, on 22 July 2022 Hungary, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, on 10 October 2022 Czechia and on 17 October 2022 Romania, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. In compliance with Article 6(4), third subparagraph, such derogations will not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purposes of the application of the customs legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Those specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented certain Member States from completing the deployment of IT means for the processing of the TS declarations by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 3 May 2022 Lithuania, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 23 May 2022 Slovenia, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Slovakia, on 4 July 2022 the Netherlands, on 6 July 2022 Estonia, on 7 July 2022 Poland, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 19 July 2022 Croatia, on 22 July 2022 Hungary, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, on 10 October 2022 Czechia and on 17 October 2022 Romania, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. In compliance with Article 6(4), third subparagraph, such derogations will not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purposes of the application of the customs legislation.

| (8) | It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to continue using their existing procedures, including the relevant IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out by Member States as provided for in Article 2(4), second subparagraph, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) for a limited period. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to continue using their existing procedures, including the relevant IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out by Member States as provided for in Article 2(4), second subparagraph, of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) for a limited period.

| (9) | Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of the electronic system for temporary storage as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of the electronic system for temporary storage as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured.

| (10) | Having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments of the TS in Member States, the current state of those developments in Member States and the need to avoid any further significant delays, the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by other transport modes, |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments of the TS in Member States, the current state of those developments in Member States and the need to avoid any further significant delays, the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by other transport modes,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Member States may use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques for the temporary storage declaration required by Article 145 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air until 31 December 2023 and for the temporary storage declaration in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by other transport modes until 29 February 2024.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 2023 until not later than 31 December 2023 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by air, and not later than 29 February 2024 in respect of goods brought into the customs territory of the Union by other transport modes.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2023.

For the Commission

Paolo GENTILONI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 of 13 December 2019 establishing the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 168).

2

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1).

3

---

| 3.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/226 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/226

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2023/237

of 1 February 2023

granting a derogation requested by certain Member States to use means other than electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information related to the customs declaration for goods brought into the customs territory of the Union laid down in Articles 158, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170 to 174, 201, 240, 250, 254 and 256 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code

(notified under document C(2023) 667)

(Only the Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish texts are authentic)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 6(4) in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof,

After consulting the Customs Code Committee,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 requires that all exchanges of information between customs authorities and between economic operators and customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as required under the customs legislation, be made using electronic data-processing techniques. For this purpose and in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, the Commission draws up common data requirements.

| (2) | Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility for the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 provides for the possibility for the Commission to adopt decisions in exceptional cases to allow one or several Member States to derogate from using electronic data-processing techniques for the exchange and storage of information if such derogation is justified by the specific situation of the requesting Member State and is granted for a specific period of time.

| (3) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and dates of deployment for the National Import System (‘NIS’) and component 2 of the Special Procedures that together cover the customs procedures for goods brought into the customs territory of the Union in accordance with Articles 158, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170 to 174, 201, 240, 250, 254 and 256 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 (2) establishes the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (‘the work programme’). The work programme lists the electronic systems to be developed and the dates on which those systems are expected to become operational. Amongst others, that programme specifies the implementation and dates of deployment for the National Import System (‘NIS’) and component 2 of the Special Procedures that together cover the customs procedures for goods brought into the customs territory of the Union in accordance with Articles 158, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170 to 174, 201, 240, 250, 254 and 256 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.

| (4) | Furthermore, Article 278(2)(b), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the customs declaration in relation to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Furthermore, Article 278(2)(b), of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 specifies the deadline until which means other than the electronic data-processing techniques may be used on a transitional basis to implement the provisions related to the customs declaration in relation to goods brought into the customs territory of the Union.

| (5) | Due to the significance of the NIS in the protection of revenues and the fight against unfair and illicit trade, all Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage declarations submitted in relation to goods brought into the EU. Several Member States have also developed electronic systems for the management of special procedures. Such systems require adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Due to the significance of the NIS in the protection of revenues and the fight against unfair and illicit trade, all Member States have already developed electronic systems to manage declarations submitted in relation to goods brought into the EU. Several Member States have also developed electronic systems for the management of special procedures. Such systems require adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 and the related Commission acts, in particular in respect of the common data requirements. Pursuant to Article 278(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, those adjustments are to be completed until 31 December 2022.

| (6) | However, three major and partially unforeseen developments have arisen all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to the resources of Member States: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria, Hungary and Lithuania. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

However, three major and partially unforeseen developments have arisen all having a significant impact on, and posing complementary challenges to the resources of Member States: the COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial delays in IT developments in Austria, Belgium, Czechia, France, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania and Spain. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and the resulting surge in the number of customs declarations required Belgium, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Spain to reshuffle resources and priorities. The financial consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the customs activities of the neighbouring or geographically close countries, further aggravated the situation and demanded additional resources in Austria, Hungary and Lithuania. In particular, procurement and tendering difficulties, as well as budgetary and staffing issues, stemming from the aforementioned circumstances had a significant impact on Member States’ abilities to meet the deadlines, as cited by Austria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Sweden.

| (7) | These specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented customs authorities from completing the deployment of IT means for the implementation of the NIS and the Component 2 of the Special Procedures by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 3 May 2022 Lithuania, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 25 May 2022 Romania, on 26 May 2022 Czechia, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Netherlands, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, and on 7 October 22 Hungary, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. In compliance with Article 6(4), third subparagraph, such derogations will not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purposes of the application of the customs legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

These specific circumstances have caused significant delays in the ongoing IT developments and prevented customs authorities from completing the deployment of IT means for the implementation of the NIS and the Component 2 of the Special Procedures by 31 December 2022. Therefore, on 21 April 2022 Austria, on 3 May 2022 Cyprus, on 3 May 2022 Lithuania, on 6 May 2022 Spain, on 25 May 2022 Romania, on 26 May 2022 Czechia, on 3 June 2022 Greece, on 7 June 2022 France, on 7 June 2022 Portugal, on 24 June 2022 Belgium, on 24 June 2022 Sweden, on 29 June 2022 Denmark, on 4 July 2022 Netherlands, on 13 July 2022 Malta, on 22 July 2022 Luxembourg, and on 7 October 22 Hungary, requested to use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques in accordance with Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. In compliance with Article 6(4), third subparagraph, such derogations will not affect the exchange of information between the Member State to which it is addressed and other Member States nor the exchange and storage of information in other Member States for the purposes of the application of the customs legislation.

| (8) | It is therefore appropriate to allow those Member States to continue using their existing IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out in Annex 9 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 (3) as provided for in Article 2(4), first subparagraph point (g) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (4) for a limited period. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

It is therefore appropriate to allow those Member States to continue using their existing IT systems in accordance with the data requirements set out in Annex 9 of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 (3) as provided for in Article 2(4), first subparagraph point (g) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (4) for a limited period.

| (9) | As a consequence of the derogation the customs authorities are to be allowed to continue to provide data for the surveillance of the release for free circulation of goods to the Commission in accordance with Article 55(6) of Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 (5). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

As a consequence of the derogation the customs authorities are to be allowed to continue to provide data for the surveillance of the release for free circulation of goods to the Commission in accordance with Article 55(6) of Commission Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 (5).

| (10) | Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden are to notify the Commission about the progress made in the development of NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures as part of the progress reporting process laid down in Article 278a of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013. The communication and sharing of national planning information as outlined in Article 4 of Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 is to be ensured.

| (11) | The NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures are key components of Member States’ customs IT environment because of their interconnections with various other national applications, the central role of NIS in, among others, the collection of revenues and the enforcement of EU level and national prohibitions and restrictions in connection to the import of goods. Due to the complexity of the NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures the changes necessary for the alignment to the UCC requirements have repercussions also on related or dependant IT systems. The duration of the derogation should thus be kept to a strict minimum. In that light and having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments of NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures in Member States and the current state of those developments in Member States the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023, |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures are key components of Member States’ customs IT environment because of their interconnections with various other national applications, the central role of NIS in, among others, the collection of revenues and the enforcement of EU level and national prohibitions and restrictions in connection to the import of goods. Due to the complexity of the NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures the changes necessary for the alignment to the UCC requirements have repercussions also on related or dependant IT systems. The duration of the derogation should thus be kept to a strict minimum. In that light and having regard to the impacts of the exceptional circumstances that have caused delays in the ongoing IT developments of NIS and Component 2 of the Special Procedures in Member States and the current state of those developments in Member States the derogation should last until not later than 31 December 2023,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Member States may use means for the exchange and storage of information other than electronic data-processing techniques for the implementation of the provisions related to the customs declaration for goods brought into the customs territory of the Union laid down in Articles 158, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170 to 174, 201, 240, 250, 254 and 256 of the Union Customs Code until 31 December 2023.

Article 2

This decision shall apply from 1 January 2023 until not later than 31 December 2023.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 1 February 2023.

For the Commission

Paolo GENTILONI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2151 of 13 December 2019 establishing the work programme relating to the development and deployment of the electronic systems provided for in the Union Customs Code (OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 168).

2

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/341 of 17 December 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards transitional rules for certain provisions of the Union Customs Code where the relevant electronic systems are not yet operational and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (OJ L 69, 15.3.2016, p. 1).

3

(4)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 1).

4

(5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).

5

---