Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs fattened as heavy carcases
Date: 1994-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural guidance, common organisation of markets, fattening, sheep, sheepmeat

COMMISSION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

COM(94) 643 final 
Brussels, 16.12.1994 

94/0329 (CNS) 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 

amending Council Regulation  (EEC) No 3013/89 
on the common organization of the market 
in sheepmeat and goatmeat 

94/0329 (CNS) 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 

amending Regulation  (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs 
fattened as heavy carcases 

(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

Introduction 

The  Council,  in  agreeing  the  1994/95  price  package,  invited  the 
Commission to examine, with a view to making them applicable  from 1995, 
measures appropriate  to : 

Italian  and  Greek  problems  linked  to  the  establishment  of  premium 
rights  due  to  the  base  year  for premium  rights  being  a  transition 
year  for them, 
the definition of the producer, in order to simplify the management 
of  the  premium  regime  for  producer  groups  without  undermining 
obligations on transfers without  the transfer of the holding,  in so 
far as the siphon is concerned, and 
a  simplified  control  system  for  the  rules  governing  the  fattening 
of  certain  light  lambs  into  heavy  carcases  in  certains  areas  of 
Portugal and Spain. 

1.  Italian  and  Greek  problems  linked  to  the  introduction  of  premium 

quota  rights. 

The  1989 reform of the sheep sector provided  for the unification of the 
premium  regime  through  the  gradual  elimination  of  regionally  based 
premia.  This  gradual  elimination  was  foreseen  for  the  period  1990  to 
1992. 

Prior  to  1990,  for  the  then  Region  1  (Italy  and  Greece) ,  although 
provision was made  for the calculation of a regional premium,  the level 
of  the  market  price  ensured  that  no  premium  was,  in  fact,  payable. 
However,  the  premium  payable  in  Region  2  (France)  was  payable,  in  a 
forfaitaire  manner,  on  ewes  in  Region  1,  on  condition  that  producers 
could  show  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  competent  authority  that  the 
lambs born  of  these  ewes would not be  slaughtered  before  two months  of 
age.  This premium  was  also payable  on  female goats  in  Italy and  Greece 
at the reduced  rate of  70% under the same condition. 

The  provision  introduced  by  the  198 9  reform  allowed  Italy  and  Greece 
(now Region  3 ), to receive  the premium  calculated  for  the new  region 2 
(North  of  the  Community  except  Great  Britain)  in  1990, under  the  same 
forfaitaire  condition as before. 
However,  although  they  provided  for  Italy  and  Greece  to  join  the  rest 
of  the  Community,  except  Great  Britain,  for  regional  premium 
calculation  purposes  from  1991  onwards,  they  also  allowed  both  Italy 
and  Greece  to  opt  for  the  1990  system  for premium  calculation  both  in 
1991 and 1992. 

Italy,  however,  opted  to  join  the  other  Member  States  for  premium 
calculation  and  payment  purposes  from  1991  onwards,  while  Greece 
followed  this  option  in  1992. This meant  that,  for  Italy,  from  1991  a 
premium  differentiated  only  between  meat  and  milk  producing  ewes  was 
payable  on  all  eligible  ewes  and  at  a  reduced  rate  on  all  eligible 
goats.  For Greece this situation took effect  in 1992. 

Italy  contends  that,  as  it  was  the  first  year  in  which  all  ewes  and 
female  goats  were  both  eligible  for  and  certain  to be  in  receipt  of  a 
premium,  1991  should  be  considered  a  transitional  year.  As  both  the 
administration  and  certain producers  were  applying  new  regulations  for 
the first time, a considerable number of producers were either not  in a 
position to apply or did not apply for premium. 

Greece also contends  that  1991 was not a normal year and indeed that it 
did not make the transition to the common premium  system until 1992. 

The  extent  to  which  producers  with  ewes  entitled  to  premium  in  Italy 
and  in  Greece  in  1991  were  not  paid  premium,  has  been  investigated  by 
the  Commission.  This  investigation  has been  on the basis  in particular 
of a comparison at regional  level of claims paid  in 1991 and 1992. 

The result of these investigations  can be summarized as follows : 

In  Italy  the  change  in  the  regime  took  place  at  the  same  time  as  a 
change  in  the  timing  of  the  application  period  for  the  premium. 
Because  of  this  producers  were  obliged  to  make  two  applications  for 
premium between January and March 1991, the first referring  to the 1990 
campaign  (old  regime)  and  the  second  to  1991  (new  regime) .  This 
introduced  an  element  of  confusion  among  some  producers  and  among 
administrations  in certain regions and resulted  in the non presentation 
of  some  applications  in  respect  of  1991.  The  main  regions  concerned 
are  Campania  Molise  and  Calabria'1'  and  in  total  up  to  140,000  Rights 
were  lost  for this reason. 

In addition, the competent  authorities  in Sardinia made a serious  error 
in  their  interpretation  of  the  new  Community  regulations  and  in  fact 
applied  a  "rule"  that  premium  applications  are  systematically  reduced 
in size  in most  cases by  20%.  This  "rule" which does not  form part  of 
the  Community  legislation  was  deleted  in  1992  and  , as  a  result,  the 
number  of premia  paid  in 1992 to each producer  on average  rose by 15%. 
However,  its application  in 1991 led to a loss of up  to 460,000  rights 
in Sardinia. 

In  Greece  in  respect  of  1991,  although  the  new  regime  was  not  yet 
applicable, premium payments  should have been representative  of  animals 
eligible  for  premium  under  the  new  regime.  In  fact,  in  addition  to 
applications  for  the  region  2  (Northern  Europe)  premium,  the 
possibility  for  applications  for  premium  for  other  ewes  (autonomous 
premium)  was  added  in April  1991  due  to  the  development  of  the  market 
price  in  Greece  at  that  time.  However,  very  few  producers  made  this 
complementary  application  (9  000  applicants  for  106,000  animals)  in 
comparison  to  producers  for  the  region  2  premium  (153,000  applicants 
for 10,267,000  animals). 

(1) In  Campania,  in  1992,  premium  applications  increased  by  60%  in 
2 

comparison to 1991. 

The  reasons  for  the  poor  uptake  of  the  second  applications  were  as 
follows : 

Producers  practicing  transhumance  (12%  of  producers)  had  already 
left their own holdings  in April 1991. 

The  complementary  application  for  the  autonomous  premium  generally 
involved  a  small  percentage  of  animals  eligible  for  premium 
(estimated at about  10%) and a low premium  level of about 2 ECU per 
h e a d ^.  However,  it  did  double  the  retention  period  for  flocks 
from  100  to  2 00  days  and  led  many  producers  not  to  apply  for  the 
autonomous premium. 

Administrative  authorities  in  certain  areas  ("nomos")  refused  to 
take  the  necessary  steps  for  the  issue  of  applications  for  the 
autonomous  premium. 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  additional  number  of  premium 
applications  which  would  have  been  made  had  the  negative  factors 
outlined  above  not  come  into  play.  However,  observation  of  the 
difference  in  animals  numbers  paid  premium  between  1991  and  1992 
(600,000  head)  provides  a  reasonable  indication  given  that  the  census 
figures supplied  to the Commission remained virtually unchanged  between 
1991 and 1992. 

As  a  result  of  the  investigations  the  Commission  now  proposes  that  a 
special  maximum  amount  of  600,000  rights  for  Italy  and  600,000  rights 
for  Greece  be  created  to  enable  these  Member  States  distribute  new 
rights  to producers  entrapped  by  the  coincidence  of  the  change  in  the 
arrangements  for  premium  eligibility  and  the  introduction  of  the 
premium  rights regime based on premia granted to individual producers. 

In this context, the Commission proposes  that the identification of the 
new  rights  created  should be made before  the end of  the  1995  marketing 
year  and  that,  subject  to  verification  by  the  Commission  services  of 
the  procedures  involved,  particularly  in  the  main  regions  concerned, 
the  actual  number  of  new  rights  created  which  could  be  lower  than  the 
special  amounts  mentioned  above, be  subsequently  added  to  the  national 
reserve of the two Member States  concerned. 

This  measure  requires  the  amendment  of  Article  5(c)  1  of  Regulation 
(EEC) No 3013/89. 

(2) Increased  in LFAs by 2.8  to 4 ECU per head  in LFAs due to the rural 
^, 

world premium. 

2.  Definition of the producer 

In the sheepmeat  and goatmeat sector both the producer and the producer 
group are defined. 
The producer may be a natural or legal person, a definition rather more 
restrictive  than  in the beef  sector where,  in addition,  a producer  may 
be a group whatever  its internal  composition. 
A  producer  group  in  the  sheepmeat  and  goatmeat  sector  is  any  form  of 
group,  association  or  cooperation  involving  reciprocal  rights  and 
obligations between producers. 
Producer groups as such never attrach premium  rights. 

Producer  group  applications  for  premium  must  be  accompanied  by  a 
breakdown  of  the  number  of  premia  applied  for  by  each member  and  must 
be  signed  by  each member. Where  sanctions  are applied,  all members  are 
subject  to them. 

Transfers  of  premium  rights  between  members  of  a  producer  group  are 
subject  to the siphon on transfers  in the normal way. 
This  requirement  to  apply  the  siphon  is  seen  as  harsh  by  the  United 
Kingdom,  particularly  when  such  transfers  occur  within  family 
partnerships.  The  adjustment  of  rights  between  producers  in  these  and 
similar  partnerships  is  seen  as  the  normal  progression  of  a business. 
It  does  not  entail  the  removal  of  rights  from  the  group  but  rather 
their transfer within it. 
Other Member  States  have  overcome  this problem  by providing  for  within 
family  type  transfers  to  be  accomodated  via  an  automatic  mechanism 
within the national reserve. 
However,  in  order  to  avoid  recourse  to  this  type  of  mechanism  and  to 
broaden  the possibility  of  allowing  transfers  between producers  within 
producer  groups,  without  the  automatic  triggering  of  the  siphoning 
mechanism,  it  will  be  necessary  to  decide  on  a  set  of  conditions  to 
apply to such transfers within producer groups. These conditions, which 
should  be  determined  via  the  Management  Committee,  should  include  a 
time  scale  for  membership  of  the  group  together  with  provision  for 
supplementary national measures to protect  the siphon. 

In  proposing  these  conditions,  the  Commission  will  be  mindful  of  its 
responsibility  to  protect  the  siphon  on  transfers  which  is  the  prime 
means of  feeding  the national reserve. 

This  measure  requires  the  amendment  of  Article  5a (4b)  of  Regulation 
(EEC) No 3013/89. 

3.  Simplified  control  for  the  fattening  of  certain breeds  of  lambs  as 

heavy carcases  in certain areas of Spain and  Portugal 

Council Regulation  (EEC) No 3901/89 establishes  the definition of  lambs 
from milk producing  ewes,  fattened  into heavy carcases. 

Producers,  more  than  40%  of  whose  lambs  are  fattened  into  heavy 
carcases,  may be granted  the premium  for ewes producing  heavy  lambs  on 
the  ewes  concerned,  although  these  ewes  are  kept  primarily  for  milk 
rather than meat production. 

This  regulation  also  derogates  from  the  definition  in  so  far  as  the 
weaning  of  lambs  is  concerned  in  respect  of  certain  breeds  of  sheep 
more orientated  towards meat production  in geographically  limited parts 
of  Spain and  Portugal, where  it  is common practice  to raise  lambs  with 
their  ewes  and  after  weaning  of  the  lambs  to  milk  the  ewes  for  a 
limited period  for the purpose of cheese production. 

Experience  of  the  operation  of  the  fattening  of  these  lambs  now  shows 
that  the  administrative  requirements  in  relation  to  the  control  of 
their  fattening,  outweigh  the benefits  accruing  for  the  receipt  of  the 
extra  amount  of  premium.  In  practice,  these  lambs  are  normally 
slaughtered  at  a  carcase  weight  of  18-20  kg,  which  is  considerably 
greater  than  the  liveweight  requirement  of  25  kg  at  the  end  of  the 
fattening period. 

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  proposes  that  the  derogation 
already  in  place  with  regard  to  these  sheep,  should  be  extended  to 
cover the other elements required by the Council Regulation. 

Subsequent  to  the  Council  adopting  this  measure,  the  Commission,  via 
the  Management  Committee,  will  propose  the  modification  of  Commission 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  2814/90,  laying  down  the  detailed  rules  for  the 
definition  of  lambs  fattened  as  heavy  carcases  in  order  to  ensure 
adequate  control  is  emplaced  to  ensure  the  correct  application  of  the 
measure. 

4.  Financial  implications 

The  financial  implications  arising  from  the  granting  of  extra  premium 
rights  in Italy and Greece, are forecast at 2 9 MECU per marketing year, 
but at 4 MECU in 1995 and 29 MECU in 1996 and subsequent years. 

The  measures  relating  to  the  definition  of  the  producer  and  the 
fattening  of  lambs  into  heavy  carcases,  do  not  entrain  any  extra 
expenditure  on the sector. 

Small and meidum enterprises. No implications. 

Only the Union has power to act as regards the measures proposed.  These 
proposals modify two existing regulations. 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EC) No 

amending Council Regulation  (EEC) No 3013/89 
on the common organization of the market 
in sheepmeat and  goatmeat 

94/0329  (CNS) 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in 

particular Article  43 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal  from the Commission(*), 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament^)  f 

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic  and Social  Committee(^), 

Whereas  by  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2069/92  of  30  June  1992<4)  amending 

Regulation  (EEC)  No  3013/89(5),  the  Council  imposed,  with  effect  from  the 

1993  marketing  year,  an  individual  limit  per  producer  in  respect  of  the 

grant of the ewe and  goat premiums; 

Whereas  the  grant  of  an  individual  limit  per  producer  for  obtaining  the 

right  to  the  premium  has  given  rise  to  administrative  difficulties  in  the 

case of certain groups of producers, in particular  family  groups, during the 

transfer  of  premium  rights  between  members  of  the  said  groups;  whereas, 

therefore,  for  reasons  of  correct  administration,  provision  should  be  made 

for certain groups to be exempted, under certain conditions, from payment to 

the national reserve of the percentage of rights provided  for in the case of 

a  transfer  of  rights  without  transfer  of  holding;  whereas  that  provision 

must  not  lead  to  an  increase  in  individual  rights  currently  allocated  in 

each  Member  State,  nor  give  rise  to  the  formation  of  new  producer  groups 

created with the sole aim of avoiding payment to the national reserve of the 

percentage  of  rights  provided  for  in  the  case  of  a  transfer  of  rights 

without transfer of holding; 

(1)  OJ No L 
(2)  OJ No L 
(3)  OJ No L 
(4)  OJ No L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 59. 
(5)  OJ  No  L  289,  7.10.19 89,  p.  1.  Regulation  last  amended  by  Regulation 

(EEC) No  1886/94  (OJ No L  197, 30.7.1994, p. 30). 

Whereas  the  individual  limit  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  total 

amount  of  premiums  granted  for  the  1991 marketing  year  for  each  producer; 

whereas  in  Italy  and  in  Greece,  because  that  marketing  year  was  a  year  of 

transition between two different premium systems, a number of producers  were 

not  able  to submit  an application  for a premium  for  the  1991 marketing  year 

for  the  number  of  eligible  animals  they  held;  whereas,  in  order  to  remedy 

this  situation,  special  reserves  should be created  for  Italy and  for  Greece 

corresponding  to the  estimated maximum number  of  rights which  the  producers 

concerned  were  unable  to  claim;  whereas  the  competent  authorities  of  those 

two Member  States  should  initially be allowed  to grant new  rights up  to  the 

limit  of  the  special  reserve  referred  to  above  and  then,  subject  to 

verification  by  the  Commission  of  the  correct  allocation  of  the  rights 

granted,  in particular  in  the  regions  most  affected,  the  national  reserves 

will  be  increased  for  Italy  and  Greece  by  the  sum  of  the  rights  newly 

granted with effect  from the 1995 marketing year; 

Whereas  it is therefore necessary to amend Regulation  (EEC) No 3 013/8 9, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

1. 

In  Article  5a(4) (b)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3013/89,  the  following 

subparagraph  is hereby added: 

"However,  with  effect  from  the  1995  marketing  year  the  previous 

paragraph  shall  not  apply  to  groups  of  producers,  in  the  case  of  a 

transfer of rights between members, meeting conditions to be  determined 

by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  provided  for  in 

Article 30." 

2. 

In Article  5b(1),  the following subparagraphs are hereby added: 

"In addition,  for  Italy and Greece  a special  reserve  of  600,000  rights 

for  each of  those  two Member  States  shall be  established  to permit  the 

granting  of  additional  rights  to  producers  affected  by  the  fact  that 

the changes  in the conditions of eligibility of animals  for the premium 

and the introduction of individual  limits on the guarantee per producer 

based  on  the  number  of  premiums  paid  for  the  marketing  year  both 

occured  in 1991. 

After  having  cleary  identified  the producers  affected  by  the  situation 

referred  to above, each of  the two Member  States  concerned  shall  grant 

additional  premium  rights before  the end of  the  1995 marketing  year  up 

to  the  limit  of  the  special  reserve  referred  to  above.  Subject  to 

verification by the Commission, particularly  in the regions  principally 

affected,  that  the allocation  of  additional  rights  has been  limited  to 

the  producers  affected  and  that  those  producers  do  not  obtain  more 

rights  than  would  have  been  granted  them  if  the  situation  referred  to 

above  had  not  occured,  the  national  reserve  established  pursuant  to 

this  Article  shall be  increased  by  an amount  corresponding  to  the  sum 

of  the  rights  newly  granted;  that  increase  shall  not  affect  the 

additional  reserve referred to in paragraph 3." 

Article 2 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  seventh  day  following  its 

publication  in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 

It shall apply from the 1995 marketing year. 

This  Regulation  shall be binding  in its entirety  and  directly  applicable  in 

all Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT 

BUDGET  HEADING: 
Item  2220 
Item  3805 

APPROPRIATIONS: 
ECU  1 261  million 
ECU  328  million 
Letter  of  amendment  to  1995  PDB 

2. 

TITLE: 
Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3013/89  on  the  common  organization  of  the  market 
in  sheepmeat  and  goatmeat 

LEGAL  BASIS:  Article  43  of  the  Treaty 

AIMS: 
(1)  To  make  provision,  under  certain  circumstances,  whereby  producer  groups  may  be  exempt  from  the  requirement  to 

transfer  a  percentage  of  their  rights  to  the  national  reserve  in  cases  where  rights  are  transferred  without  transfer  of  a 
holding. 

(2)  To  create  for  Italy  and  Greece  a  special  reserve  containing  a  maximum  number  of  potential  rights  which  did  not  go 
to  the  producers  concerned  because  the  reference  year  (1991)  was  a  transitional  year  for  these  Member  States. 

5. 

FINANCIAL  IMPLICATIONS: 

5.0. 

EXPENDITURE 
-  CHARGED  TO  THE  EC  BUDGET 

(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 

-  NATIONAL  AUTHORITIES 
-  OTHER 

PERIOD  OF  12 
MONTHS 

(ECU  million) 

29 

CURRENT 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(95) 
(ECU  million) 

FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(96) 
(ECU  million) 

29 

5.0.1. 
5.1.1. 

5.2. 

ESTIMATED  EXPENDITURE 
ESTIMATED  REVENUE 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

ECU  29  m 

ECU  29  m 

ECU  29  m 

ECU  29  m 

METHOD  OF  CALCULATION: 
1995  marketing  year  (light  ewes) 
Item  2220  Greece:  600  000  head  x  ECU  20.917/head  x  0.8  x  1.207  = 
600  000  head  x  ECU  20.917/head  x  0.8  x  1.207  = 

Italy: 

An  assumption  is  made  that  Italy  will  pay  an  advance  of  30%  in  1995, 
Item  3805  Greece:  480  000  head  x  ECU  3.8/head  x  1.207  = 
480  000  head  x  ECU  3.8/head  x  1.207 = 

Italy: 

An  assumption  is  made  that  neither  Italy  nor  Greece  will  pay  in  1995. 
Total  for  the  measure  in  1995  =  ECU  28.6  million 

ECU  12.1  million  (B) 
ECU  12.1  million  (B) 
ECU  24.2  million  (B) 
i.e.  ECU  4  million 
ECU  2.2  million  (B) 
ECU  2.2  million  (B) 
ECU  4.4  million  (B) 

6.0. 

CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT 
CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? 

YES 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

CAN  THE  PROJECT  BE  FINANCED  BY  TRANSFER  BETWEEN  CHAPTERS  OF  THE  CURRENT 
BUDGET? 

WILL  A  SUPPLEMENTARY  BUDGET  BE  NECESSARY? 

WILL  FUTURE  BUDGET  APPROPRIATIONS  BE  NECESSARY? 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

YES 

OBSERVATIONS 

(1)  The  letter  of  amendment  to  the  1995  PDB  already  takes  on  board  ECU  4  million  so  as  to  take  account 

of  the  Council  Decision  of  July  last  to  increase  the  national  reserves  of  Italy  and  Greece. 

\0 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EC) No 

amending Regulation  (EEC) No 3901/89 defining  lambs 
fattened as heavy  carcases 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard to the Treaty establishing  the European Community, 

Having  regard to Council Regulation  (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September  1989 on 

the  common  organization  of  the market  in sheepmeat  and goatmeat^1',  as  last 

amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 

/94^2',  and  in  particular  Article  4(2) 

thereof, 

Having  regard to the proposal  from the Commission, 

Whereas  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3901/89^3^  establishes  the  definition 

of  lambs  fattened  as  heavy  carcases  which  are  produced  by  ewes  producing 

milk;  whereas  that  Regulation,  which  lays  down  the  conditions  under  which 

the  said  definition  applies, also  lays down  limited  derogations  with  regard 

to weaning  for lambs belonging  to a limited number of meat breeds and  raised 

in geographically  well-defined  areas; whereas  experience  obtained  has  shown 

that the fact that those lambs are subject  to the other conditions  laid down 

in  that  Regulation  has  resulted  in  the  introduction  of  a  control  procedure 

out  of  proportion  to  the  objective,  that  is  to  guarantee  that  the  lambs 

achieve  a  sufficiently  high  weight  at  slaughter;  whereas,  therefore, 

provision  should  be  made  for  the  derogations,  currently  restricted  to  the 

weaning of the lambs, to be extended to other conditions to be  determined, 

(1)  OJ  No  L  289,  7.10.1989,  p.  1. 
(2)  OJ  No  L 
, 
(3)  OJ  No  L  375,  23.12.1989,  p.  4 

, p. 

It 

HAS ADOPTED  THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

The  second  subparagraph  of  Article  1(1)  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 3901/89  is 

hereby  replaced  by the  following: 

"However,  derogations  from  the  first  subparagraph  are  possible  for  lambs 

belonging  to  a  limited  number  of  meat  breeds  and  raised  in  geographically 

well-defined areas." 

Article 2 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  seventh  day  following  its 

publication  in the official Journal of the European Communities. 

It  shall  apply  to  the  premiums  to  be  paid  for  the  1995  and  subsequent 

marketing  years. 

This  Regulation  shall be binding  in its entirety  and  directly  applicable  in 

all Member  States.  • 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 

11 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

FINANCIAL  STATEMENT 

h-

BUDGET  HEADING: 
Item  2220 

APPROPRIATIONS: 
ECU  1.261  million 
Letter  of amendment  to  1995 PDB 

TITLE: 
Proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC) No  3901/89  defining  lambs  fattened  as heavy  carcases 

LEGAL BASIS: 
Article 4(2)  of Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  3013/89 

AIMS: 
To  extend  the  currently  limited  derogations  as regards weaning  lambs belonging  to  a limited  number  of meat  breeds 
and raised  in geographically  well-defined  areas to  other  circumstances, to be  established  on administrative  grounds 
during  the weight  checks  at  slaughter 

FINANCIAL  IMPLICATIONS: 

PERIOD  OF  12 
MONTHS 

(ECU million) 

CURRENT 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(95) 
(ECU  million) 

FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(96) 
(ECU  million) 

5.0. 

EXPENDITURE 
-  CHARGED  TO THE  EC BUDGET 

(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 

- NATIONAL  AUTHORITIES 
-  OTHER 

5.1. 

REVENUE 
-  OWN  RESOURCES  OF THE EC 
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS  DUTIES) 

-  NATIONAL 

5.0.1. 
5.1.1. 

ESTIMATED  EXPENDITURE 
ESTIMATED  REVENUE 

5.2. 

METHOD  OF  CALCULATION: 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

6.0. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

CAN THE  PROJECT  BE FINANCED  FROM  APPROPRIATIONS  ENTERED  IN THE  RELEVANT 
CHAPTER  OF THE  CURRENT  BUDGET? 

CAN THE  PROJECT  BE FINANCED  BY TRANSFER  BETWEEN  CHAPTERS  OF THE  CURRENT 
BUDGET? 

WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY  BUDGET  BE NECESSARY? 

WILL  FUTURE  BUDGET  APPROPRIATIONS  BE NECESSARY? 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

OBSERVATIONS 

n 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM (94) 643 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03 

Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-666-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-83907-4 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 

it*.