CELEX: 51991PC0076
Language: en
Date: 1991-03-12
Title: PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DECISION AMENDING THE SEVENTH DECISION, 85/355/EEC, ON THE EQUIVALENCE OF FIELD INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THIRD COUNTRIES ON SEED PRODUCING CROPS AND THE SEVENTH DECISION, 85/356/EEC, ON THE EQUIVALENCE OF SEED PRODUCED IN THIRD COUNTRIES

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMVIUNITIES
                                         C0M(91) 76  final
                                         Brussels, 12 March 1991
                              Proposal for a
                             COUNCIL DECISION
  amending the seventh Decision, 857358/EBC, on the equivalence of field
    inspections carried out in third countries on seed producing crops
       and the seventh Decision, 857356/EEC, on the equivalence of
                     seed produced in third countries
                      (presented by the Commission)
 ---pagebreak---                               EXPLAMATQEg IEEE
By Decision 85/355/EBC the Council determined that field inspections carried
out in certain third countries on seed-producing crops of oertain species
satisfy the conditions laid down in the Community legislation on the
marketing of seed; by Decision 83/356/EBC the Council determined that seed of
certain species produced in the same third countries is equivalent to
corresponding seed produced in the Community. These Decisions cover twenty-
one third countries and establish the conditions under which seed of
agricultural plant species may be imported into the Community.
Both Decisions expire on 30 June 1995 for the vast majority of the countries,
having been renewed in 1990 for a period of 5 years. In the case of Austria,
however, additional information was needed before a full five year
equvialence could be considered and the equivalence arrangements only
extended to that country until 31st March 1991.
In the light of additional information this proposal provides for an
extension of the period of equivalence for Austria for all seeds, other than
maize, until 30th June 1995. In the case of maize, further monitoring of the
situation is still necessary and the proposal provides for a one year
extension only, that is until 31st March 1992.
The proposal would have little or no impact on small or medium-sized
enterprises.
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 2 -
                               COUNCIL DECISION
                                 Of
    amending the seventh Decision, 85/355/EBC, on the equivalence of field
      inspections carried out in third countries on seed producing crops
         and the seventh Decision, 85/356/EBC, on the equivalence of
                       seed produced in third countries
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN OCMMDNTTIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/400/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the
marketing of beet seed^1) as last amended fcy Directive 90/654/EEC(2) and in
particular Article 16(1)(a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/401/EEC of 14 June 1966 on the
marketing of fodder plant seed(3), as last amended by Directive
90/654/EEC(2) and in particular Article 16(l)(a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 66/402/EBC of 14 June 1966 on the
marketing of cereal seedt4), as last amended by Directive 90/654/EBC^2)
and in particular Article 16(1)(a) and (b) thereof,
Having regard to Council Directive 69/208/EBC of 30 June 1969 on the
marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants^5), as last amended by Directive
90/654/EEC(2) and in particular Article 15(l)(a) and (b) thereof,
(1)    QTNO  125, 11.7.1966, p. 2290/66.
(2)    QJ No L 353, 17.12.1990, p. 48.
(3)    OJ NO 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2298/66.
(4)    OJNO  125, 11.7.1966, p. 2309/66.
(5)    OJ No L 169, 10.7.1969, p. 3.
 ---pagebreak---                                        - 3 -
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Whereas, in its seventh Decision, 85/355/EEC(6), as last amended by Council
Decision 90/402/EBC(?) the Council determined that field inspections carried
out in certain third countries on seed-producing crops of certain species
satisfy the conditions laid down in Directives 66/400/EBC, 66/401/EBC,
66/402/EBC and 69/208/EBC;
Whereas, in its seventh Decision, 85/356/EBC^8^, as last amended by Council
Decision 90/402/EBcW the Council determined that seed of certain species
produced in certain third countries is equivalent to corresponding seed
harvested in the Community;
Whereas, in the case of certain third countries, additional detailed
information was requested and the equivalence granted In respect of those
countries was limited to a period thought necessary to examine and assess
that additional information; whereas that period expires in the case of
Austria on 31 March 1991;
Whereas, in the case of Austria, the examination and assessment of the
information requested is, for the present, complete for all the species other
than maize; whereas it is therefore appropriate as far as species other than
maize are concerned, to extend the above-mentioned period until 30 June 1995,
the date on which Decisions 85/355/EBC and 85/356/EBC expire in respect of
the majority of third countries;
Whereas in the case of Austria and as far as maize is concerned further
Information is awaited; whereas it is therefore appropriate in this case, to
grant a shorter extension of the abovementioned period, to allow time for
this ±DfcujuBitixtt to te supplied aod aasossfid.;
(6)    OJ No L 195, 26.7.1985, p. 1.
(7)    OJ NO L 208, 7.8.1990, p. 37.
(8)    OJ NO L 195, 26.7.1985, p. 20.
 ---pagebreak---                                      - 4 -
HAS ADOPTS) OSES DECISION:
                                   Article l
Article 3 of Decision 85/355/EBC is replaced by the following:
'Article 3
This Decision shall apply from 1 July 1990 to 31 March 1992 in the case of
Austria for the species Zea maize (Maize), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995
in the case of Austria for all other species listed against that country in
the table in Part I, point (2) of the Annex, from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1992
in the case of Australia for the species Medioago sativa (lucerne) and
ïïellanthns annuus (sunflower), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the case
of Australia for all other species listed against that country in the table
in Part I, point (2) of the Annex and from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 in the
case of the other third countries listed in Fart 1 of the Annex. '
                                   Article 2
Article 5 of Decision 85/356/EBC is hereby amended as follows:
'Article 5
This Decision shall apply from 1 July 1990 to 31 March 1992 in the case of
Austria for the species Zea maize (maize), from 1 duly 1990 to 30 June 1995
in the case of Austria for all other species listed against that country in
the table in Part 1, point (2) of the Annex, from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1992
in the case of Australia for the species Medioago sativa (luoeme) and
Htelianthus annuus (sunflower), from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 In the case
of Australia for all other species listed against that country in the tsiûe
in Part I, point (2) of the Annex and from 1 July 1990 to 30 June 109£ i^ ths
case of the other third countries listed in Part 1 of the Annex. '
                                   Article 3
T M g Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels,                              For the Council
 ---pagebreak---                                 à
                                                      Task Force PME
             COMPETITIVENESS AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACT STATEMENT
I   What is the main reason for introducing the measure?
    To extend the period of seed equivalence arrangements for Austria until
    31st March 1992 in respect of maize seed and until 30th June 1995 for
    all other seed.
II  Features of the business in question. In particular:
    a) Are there many SMEs?
       Not known
    b) Are they concentrated in regions v,TMv'h « T W
       I eligible for regional aid in the Member States?
          So far as is known, there is no particular concentration of SME's
          in any particular region
       II eligible under the ERDF?
III What direct obligations does this measure impose on businesses?
    None
IV  What indirect obligations are local authorities likely to impose on
    businesses?
    None
V   Are there any special measures in respect of SMEs? Please specify.
    None
VI  What is the likely effect on:
    a) the oompetiveness of businesses?
       None
    b) employment?
       None
VII Have both sides of industry been consulted? Please indicate their
    opinions.
    No
 ---pagebreak---                                                                                ISSN 0254-1475
                                                                   COM(91) 76 final
                                                     DOCUMENTS
EN
                                                                                          03
                                 Catalogue number : CB-CO-91-100-EN-C
                                                              ISBN 92-77-700974
PRICE                        1 - 30 pages: 3.50 ECU     per additional 10 pages; 1.25 ECU
( WEce for Official Publications of the European Communities
1 -Z9S5 Luxembourg