Article 68 Transitional provisions
1. Planting rights granted to producers in accordance with Article 85h, Article 85i or Article 85k of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 before 31 December 2015 which have not been used by those producers and are still valid by that date may be converted into authorisations under this Chapter as from 1 January 2016. Such conversion shall take place upon a request to be submitted by those producers before 31 December 2015. Member States may decide to allow producers to submit such a request to convert rights into authorisations until 31 December 2020. 2. Authorisations granted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall have the same period of validity as the planting rights referred to in paragraph 1. If these authorisations are not used, they shall expire at the latest by 31 December 2018, or, where a Member State has taken the decision referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, at the latest by 31 December 2023. 3. The areas covered by the authorisations granted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be not be counted for the purposes of Article 63.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 68 Transitional provisions):
1. Planting rights granted to producers in accordance with Article 85h, Article 85i or Article 85k of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 before 31 December 2015 which have not been used by those producers and are still valid by that date may be converted into authorisations under this Chapter as from 1 January 2016. Such conversion shall take place upon a request to be submitted by those producers before 31 December 2015. Member States may decide to allow producers to submit such a request to convert rights into authorisations until 31 December 2022. 2. Authorisations granted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall have the same period of validity as the planting rights referred to in paragraph 1. If those authorisations are not used, they shall expire at the latest by 31 December 2018, or, where a Member State has taken the decision referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, at the latest by 31 December 2025. 2a. From 1 January 2023, an area equivalent to the area covered by planting rights that were eligible for conversion into planting authorisations on 31 December 2022 but have not yet been converted into authorisations in accordance to paragraph 1, shall remain at the disposal of the Member States concerned, which may grant authorisations in accordance with Article 64 at the latest by 31 December 2025. 3. The areas covered by the authorisations granted pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2a of this Article shall not be counted for the purposes of Article 63.
Article 69 Delegated powers
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) the conditions for the application of the exemption referred to in Article 62(4); (b) the rules relating to the criteria referred to in Article 64(1) and (2); (c) the addition of criteria to those listed in Article 64(1) and (2); (d) the co-existence of vines that the producer has undertaken to grub up with newly planted vines pursuant to Article 66(2); (e) the grounds for Member State decisions under Article 66(3).
Article 70 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the necessary measures in relation to: (a) the procedures for granting the authorisations; (b) the records to be kept by the Member States and notifications to be sent to the Commission. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 71 Non-authorised plantings
1. Producers shall grub up at their own cost areas planted with vines without an authorisation. 2. If producers do not grub up within four months from the date on which they are notified of the irregularity, Member States shall ensure the grubbing up of such non-authorised plantings within two years following the expiry of the four-month period. The relevant cost shall be charged to the producers concerned. 3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission by 1 March each year the total size of the areas ascertained as planted with vines without an authorisation after 1 January 2016, as well as the areas grubbed up in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2. 4. A producer who has not complied with the obligation laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be subject to penalties to be laid down in accordance with Article 64 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 5. Areas planted with vines without an authorisation shall not benefit from any national or Union support measures.
Article 72 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down necessary measures setting out the details of the communication requirements that Member States are to comply with, including possible reductions of the budgetary limits provided for in Annex VI in the case of non-compliance. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 73 Scope
Without prejudice to any other provisions applicable to agricultural products, as well as to the provisions adopted in the veterinary, phytosanitary and food sectors to ensure that products comply with hygiene and health standards and to protect animal, plant and human health, this Section lays down the rules concerning marketing standards. Those rules shall be divided between obligatory rules and optional reserved terms for agricultural products. Subsection 2 Marketing standards by sectors or products
Article 74 General principle
The products for which marketing standards by sectors or products have been laid down in accordance with this Section may be marketed in the Union only if they conform to those standards.
Article 75 Establishment and content
1. Marketing standards may apply to one or more of the following sectors and products: (a) olive oil and table olives; (b) fruit and vegetables; (c) processed fruit and vegetable products; (d) bananas; (e) live plants; (f) eggs; (g) poultrymeat; (h) spreadable fats intended for human consumption; (i) hops. 2. In order to take into account the expectations of consumers and to improve the economic conditions for the production and marketing as well as the quality of the agricultural products covered by paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Article, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on marketing standards by sectors or products, at all stages of the marketing, as well as derogations and exemptions from such standards in order to adapt to constantly changing market conditions, to evolving consumer demands, to developments in relevant international standards and to avoid creating obstacles to product innovation. 3. Without prejudice to Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 27 ), the marketing standards referred to in paragraph 1 may cover one or more of the following, to be determined on a sectoral or product basis and based on the characteristics of each sector, the need to regulate the placing on the market and the conditions defined in paragraph 5 of this Article: (a) the technical definitions, designation and sales descriptions for sectors other than those set out in Article 78; (b) classification criteria such as grading into classes, weight, sizing, age and category; (c) the species, plant variety or animal race or the commercial type; (d) the presentation, labelling linked to obligatory marketing standards, packaging, rules to be applied in relation to packing centres, marking, year of harvesting and use of specific terms, without prejudice to Articles 92 to 123; (e) criteria such as appearance, consistency, conformation, product characteristics and the percentage of water content; (f) specific substances used in production, or components or constituents, including their quantitative content, purity and identification; (g) the type of farming and production method including oenological practices and advanced systems of sustainable production; (h) coupage of must and wine including definitions thereof, blending and restrictions thereof; (i) the frequency of collection, delivery, preservation and handling, the conservation method and temperature, storage and transport; (j) the place of farming and/or origin, excluding poultrymeat and spreadable fats; (k) restrictions as regards the use of certain substances and practices; (l) specific use; (m) the conditions governing the disposal, the holding, circulation and use of products not in conformity with the marketing standards adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 or with the definitions, designations and sales descriptions as referred to in Article 78, as well as the disposal of by-products. 4. In addition to paragraph 1, marketing standards may apply to the wine sector. Points (f), (g), (h), (k) and (m) of paragraph 3 shall apply to that sector. 5. The marketing standards by sectors or products adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article shall be established without prejudice to Articles 84 to 88 and Annex IX and shall take into account: (a) the specific characteristics of the product concerned; (b) the need to ensure the conditions to facilitate the placing of the products on the market; (c) the interest of producers to communicate the product and farming characteristics, and the interest of consumers to receive adequate and transparent product information, including the place of farming to be determined on a case-by-case basis at the appropriate geographical level, after conducting an evaluation, in particular, of the costs and administrative burdens for operators and the benefits offered to producers and the end consumer; (d) the methods available for determining physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics of the products; (e) the standard recommendations adopted by international bodies; (f) the need to preserve the natural and essential characteristics of products and to avoid causing a substantial change in the composition of the product concerned. 6. In order to take into account the expectations of consumers and the need to improve the quality and the economic conditions for the production and marketing of agricultural products, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 to modify the list of sectors in paragraph 1. Such delegated acts shall be strictly limited to demonstrated needs resulting from evolving consumer demand, technical progress or the need for product innovation, and shall be subject to a Commission report to the European Parliament and to the Council evaluating, in particular, the needs of the consumer, the costs and administrative burdens for operators, including the impact on the internal market and on international trade, and the benefits offered to producers and to the end consumer.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 75 Establishment and content):
1. Marketing standards may apply to one or more of the following sectors and products: (a) olive oil and table olives; (b) fruit and vegetables; (c) processed fruit and vegetable products; (d) bananas; (e) live plants; (f) eggs; (g) poultrymeat; (h) spreadable fats intended for human consumption; (i) hops. 2. In order to take into account the expectations of consumers and to improve the economic conditions for the production and marketing as well as the quality of the agricultural products covered by paragraphs 1 and 4 of this Article, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on marketing standards by sectors or products, at all stages of the marketing, as well as derogations and exemptions from such standards in order to adapt to constantly changing market conditions, to evolving consumer demands, to developments in relevant international standards and to avoid creating obstacles to product innovation. 3. Without prejudice to Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ), the marketing standards referred to in paragraph 1 may cover one or more of the following, to be determined on a sectoral or product basis and based on the characteristics of each sector, the need to regulate the placing on the market and the conditions defined in paragraph 5 of this Article: (a) the technical definitions, designation and sales descriptions for sectors other than those set out in Article 78; (b) classification criteria such as grading into classes, weight, sizing, age and category; (c) the species, plant variety or animal race or the commercial type; (d) the presentation, labelling linked to obligatory marketing standards, packaging, rules to be applied in relation to packing centres, marking, year of harvesting and use of specific terms, without prejudice to Articles 92 to 123; (e) criteria such as appearance, consistency, conformation, product characteristics and the percentage of water content; (f) specific substances used in production, or components or constituents, including their quantitative content, purity and identification; (g) the type of farming and production method including oenological practices and advanced systems of sustainable production; (h) coupage of must and wine including definitions thereof, blending and restrictions thereof; (i) the frequency of collection, delivery, preservation and handling, the conservation method and temperature, storage and transport; (j) the place of farming and/or origin, excluding poultrymeat and spreadable fats; (k) restrictions as regards the use of certain substances and practices; (l) specific use; (m) the conditions governing the disposal, the holding, circulation and use of products not in conformity with the marketing standards adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 or with the definitions, designations and sales descriptions as referred to in Article 78, as well as the disposal of by-products. The marketing standards by sectors or products adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article shall be established without prejudice to Articles 84 to 88 and Annex IX and shall take into account: (a) the specific characteristics of the product concerned; (b) the need to ensure the conditions to facilitate the placing of the products on the market; (c) the interest of producers to communicate the product and farming characteristics, and the interest of consumers to receive adequate and transparent product information, including the place of farming to be determined on a case-by-case basis at the appropriate geographical level, after conducting an evaluation, in particular, of the costs and administrative burdens for operators and the benefits offered to producers and the end consumer; (d) the methods available for determining physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics of the products; (e) the standard recommendations adopted by international bodies; (f) the need to preserve the natural and essential characteristics of products and to avoid causing a substantial change in the composition of the product concerned. 6. In order to take into account the expectations of consumers and the need to improve the quality and the economic conditions for the production and marketing of agricultural products, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 to modify the list of sectors in paragraph 1. Such delegated acts shall be strictly limited to demonstrated needs resulting from evolving consumer demand, technical progress or the need for product innovation, and shall be subject to a Commission report to the European Parliament and to the Council evaluating, in particular, the needs of the consumer, the costs and administrative burdens for operators, including the impact on the internal market and on international trade, and the benefits offered to producers and to the end consumer.
Article 76 Additional requirements for marketing of products in the fruit and vegetables sector
1. In addition, where relevant, to the applicable marketing standards referred to in Article 75, products of the fruit and vegetables sector which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer may only be marketed if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. 2. The marketing standards referred to in paragraph 1, as well as any marketing standard applicable to the fruit and vegetables sector laid down in accordance with this subsection, shall apply at all marketing stages including import and export, and may cover quality, categorisation, weight, size, packing, packaging, storage, transport, presentation and marketing. 3. The holder of products of the fruit and vegetables sector covered by marketing standards shall not display such products, offer them for sale or deliver or market them in any manner within the Union other than in conformity with those standards and shall be responsible for ensuring such conformity. 4. In order to ensure the proper application of requirements set out in paragraph 1 of this Article and to take into account certain specific situations, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning specific derogations to this Article which are necessary for its proper application.
Article 77 Certification for hops
1. In addition, where relevant, to the applicable marketing standards, products of the hops sector harvested or prepared within the Union shall be subject to a certification procedure under this Article. 2. Certificates may be issued only for products having the minimum quality characteristics appropriate to a specific stage of marketing. In the case of hop powder, hop powder with higher lupulin content, extract of hops and mixed hop products, the certificate may only be issued if the alpha acid content of these products is not lower than that of the hops from which they have been prepared. 3. The certificates shall at least indicate: (a) the place(s) of production of the hops; (b) the year(s) of harvesting; and (c) the variety or varieties. 4. Products of the hops sector may be marketed or exported only if covered by a certificate issued in accordance with this Article. In the case of imported products of the hops sector, the attestation provided for in Article 190(2) shall be deemed to be equivalent to that certificate. 5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down measures derogating from paragraph 4 of this Article: (a) in order to satisfy the trade requirements of certain third countries; or (b) for products intended for special uses. The measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall: (i) not prejudice the normal marketing of products for which the certificate has been issued; and (ii) be accompanied by guarantees intended to avoid any confusion with those products.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 77 Certification for hops):
1. In addition, where relevant, to the applicable marketing standards, products of the hops sector harvested or prepared within the Union shall be subject to a certification procedure under this Article. 2. Certificates may be issued only for products having the minimum quality characteristics appropriate to a specific stage of marketing. In the case of hop powder, hop powder with higher lupulin content, extract of hops and mixed hop products, the certificate may only be issued if the alpha acid content of these products is not lower than that of the hops from which they have been prepared. The certificates shall at least indicate: (a) the place(s) of production of the hops; (b) the year(s) of harvesting; and (c) the variety or varieties. 4. Products of the hops sector may be marketed or exported only if covered by a certificate issued in accordance with this Article. In the case of imported products of the hops sector, the attestation provided for in Article 190(2) shall be deemed to be equivalent to that certificate. 5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down measures derogating from paragraph 4 of this Article: (a) in order to satisfy the trade requirements of certain third countries; or (b) for products intended for special uses. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down measures derogating from paragraph 4 of this Article: (a) in order to satisfy the trade requirements of certain third countries; or (b) for products intended for special uses. The measures referred to in the first subparagraph shall: (i) not prejudice the normal marketing of products for which the certificate has been issued; and (ii) be accompanied by guarantees intended to avoid any confusion with those products.
Article 78 Definitions, designations and sales descriptions for certain sectors and products
1. In addition, where relevant, to the applicable marketing standards, the definitions, designations and sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII shall apply to the following sectors or products: (a) beef and veal; (b) wine; (c) milk and milk products intended for human consumption; (d) poultrymeat; (e) eggs; (f) spreadable fats intended for human consumption; and (g) olive oil and table olives. 2. The definitions, designations or sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII may be used in the Union only for the marketing of a product which conforms to the corresponding requirements laid down in that Annex. 3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning the modifications, derogations or exemptions to the definitions and sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII. Those delegated acts shall be strictly limited to demonstrated needs resulting from evolving consumer demand, technical progress or the need for product innovation. 4. In order to ensure that operators and Member States have a clear and proper understanding of the definitions and sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning the rules on their specification and application. 5. In order to take into account the expectations of consumers and the evolution of the milk products market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 to specify the milk products in respect of which the animal species from which the milk originates is to be stated, if it is not bovine, and to lay down the necessary rules.
Article 79 Tolerance
1. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of each product or sector, the different marketing stages, the technical conditions, any possible considerable practical difficulty, and also the accuracy and repeatability of the methods of analysis, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on tolerance for one or more specific standards in excess of which the entire batch of products shall be considered not to respect that standard. 2. When adopting the acts referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall take into account the need not to alter the intrinsic characteristics of the product and to avoid lowering its quality.
Article 80 Oenological practices and methods of analyses
1. Only oenological practices authorised in accordance with Annex VIII and provided for in point (g) of Article 75(3) and in Article 83(2) and (3) shall be used in the production and conservation of the products listed in Part II of Annex VII in the Union. The first subparagraph shall not apply to: (a) grape juice and concentrated grape juice; and (b) grape must and concentrated grape must intended for the preparation of grape juice. Authorised oenological practices shall only be used for the purposes of ensuring proper vinification, proper preservation or proper refinement of the product. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII shall be produced in the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Annex VIII. 2. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII shall not be marketed in the Union if: (a) they have undergone unauthorised Union oenological practices; (b) they have undergone unauthorised national oenological practices; or (c) they do not comply with the rules laid down in Annex VIII. The grapevine products which are unmarketable in accordance with the first subparagraph shall be destroyed. By way of derogation from this rule, Member States may authorise the use of certain of such products, the characteristics of which they shall determine, by distilleries or vinegar factories or for industrial purposes, provided that this authorisation does not become an incentive to produce grapevine products by means of unauthorised oenological practices. 3. When authorising oenological practices for wine as referred to in point (g) of Article 75(3), the Commission shall: (a) take into account the oenological practices and methods of analyses recommended and published by the OIV, as well as the results of experimental use of as-yet unauthorised oenological practices; (b) take into account the protection of human health; (c) take into account the possible risk of consumers being misled due to their well established perception of the product and their corresponding expectations, having regard to the availability and feasibility of informational means to exclude such risks; (d) allow the preservation of the natural and essential characteristics of the wine and not cause a substantial change in the composition of the product concerned; (e) ensure an acceptable minimum level of environmental care; (f) respect the general rules concerning oenological practices and the rules laid down in Annex VIII. 4. In order to ensure the correct treatment of unmarketable wine products, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules on the national procedures referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article, and derogations therefrom concerning the withdrawal or destruction of wine products that do not comply with the requirements. 5. The Commission shall, where necessary, adopt implementing acts laying down the methods referred to in point (d) of Article 75(5) for products listed in Part II of Annex VII. Those methods shall be based on any relevant methods recommended and published by the OIV, unless they would be ineffective or inappropriate in view of the objective pursued by the Union. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). Pending the adoption of such implementing acts, the methods and rules to be used shall be those allowed by the Member State concerned.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 80 Oenological practices and methods of analyses):
The first subparagraph shall not apply to: (a) grape juice and concentrated grape juice; and (b) grape must and concentrated grape must intended for the preparation of grape juice. Authorised oenological practices shall only be used for the purposes of ensuring proper vinification, proper preservation or proper refinement of the product. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII shall be produced in the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Annex VIII. 2. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII shall not be marketed in the Union if: (a) they have undergone unauthorised Union oenological practices; (b) they have undergone unauthorised national oenological practices; or (c) they do not comply with the rules laid down in Annex VIII. The grapevine products which are unmarketable in accordance with the first subparagraph shall be destroyed. By way of derogation from this rule, Member States may authorise the use of certain of such products, the characteristics of which they shall determine, by distilleries or vinegar factories or for industrial purposes, provided that this authorisation does not become an incentive to produce grapevine products by means of unauthorised oenological practices. When authorising oenological practices for wine as referred to in point (g) of Article 75(3), the Commission shall: (a) take into account the oenological practices and methods of analyses recommended and published by the OIV, as well as the results of experimental use of as-yet unauthorised oenological practices; (b) take into account the protection of human health; (c) take into account the possible risk of consumers being misled due to their well established perception of the product and their corresponding expectations, having regard to the availability and feasibility of informational means to exclude such risks; (d) allow the preservation of the natural and essential characteristics of the wine and not cause a substantial change in the composition of the product concerned; (e) ensure an acceptable minimum level of environmental care; (f) respect the general rules concerning oenological practices and the rules laid down in Annex VIII. 4. In order to ensure the correct treatment of unmarketable wine products, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning rules on the national procedures referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 of this Article, and derogations therefrom concerning the withdrawal or destruction of wine products that do not comply with the requirements. 5. The Commission shall, where necessary, adopt implementing acts laying down the methods referred to in point (d) of Article 75(5) for products listed in Part II of Annex VII. Those methods shall be based on any relevant methods recommended and published by the OIV, unless they would be ineffective or inappropriate in view of the objective pursued by the Union. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). Pending the adoption of such implementing acts, the methods and rules to be used shall be those allowed by the Member State concerned.
Article 81 Wine grape varieties
1. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII and produced in the Union shall be made from wine grape varieties classifiable in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article. 2. Subject to paragraph 3, Member States shall classify which wine grape varieties may be planted, replanted or grafted on their territories for the purpose of wine production. Only wine grape varieties meeting the following conditions may be classified by Member States: (a) the variety concerned belongs to the species Vitis vinifera or comes from a cross between the species Vitis vinifera and other species of the genus Vitis ; (b) the variety is not one of the following: Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont. Where a wine grape variety is deleted from the classification referred to in the first subparagraph, grubbing up of this variety shall take place within 15 years of its deletion. 3. Member States whose wine production does not exceed 50 000 hectolitres per wine year, calculated on the basis of the average production during the last five wine years, shall be exempt from the classification obligation provided for in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2. However, also in those Member States, only wine grape varieties complying with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 may be planted, replanted or grafted for the purpose of wine production. 4. By way of derogation from the first and third subparagraphs of paragraph 2 and the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the planting, replanting or grafting of the following wine grape varieties shall be allowed by the Member States for scientific research and experimental purposes: (a) wine grape varieties which are not classified, in the case of the Member States other than those referred to in paragraph 3; (b) wine grape varieties which do not comply with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, in the case of the Member States referred to in paragraph 3. 5. Areas planted with wine grape varieties for the purpose of wine production planted in breach of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be grubbed up. However, there shall be no obligation to grub up such areas where the relevant production is intended exclusively for consumption by the wine-producer's household.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 81 Wine grape varieties):
1. Products listed in Part II of Annex VII and produced in the Union shall be made from wine grape varieties classifiable in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article. 2. Subject to paragraph 3, Member States shall classify which wine grape varieties may be planted, replanted or grafted on their territories for the purpose of wine production. Only wine grape varieties meeting the following conditions may be classified by Member States: (a) the variety concerned belongs to the species Vitis vinifera or comes from a cross between the species Vitis vinifera and other species of the genus Vitis ; (b) the variety is not one of the following: Noah, Othello, Isabelle, Jacquez, Clinton and Herbemont. Where a wine grape variety is deleted from the classification referred to in the first subparagraph, grubbing up of this variety shall take place within 15 years of its deletion. 3. Member States whose wine production does not exceed 50 000 hectolitres per wine year, calculated on the basis of the average production during the last five wine years, shall be exempt from the classification obligation provided for in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2. However, also in those Member States, only wine grape varieties complying with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 may be planted, replanted or grafted for the purpose of wine production. 4. By way of derogation from the first and third subparagraphs of paragraph 2 and the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the planting, replanting or grafting of the following wine grape varieties shall be allowed by the Member States for scientific research and experimental purposes: (a) wine grape varieties which are not classified, in the case of the Member States other than those referred to in paragraph 3; (b) wine grape varieties which do not comply with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, in the case of the Member States referred to in paragraph 3. By way of derogation from the first and third subparagraphs of paragraph 2 and the second subparagraph of paragraph 3, the planting, replanting or grafting of the following wine grape varieties shall be allowed by the Member States for scientific research and experimental purposes: (a) wine grape varieties which are not classified, in the case of the Member States other than those referred to in paragraph 3; (b) wine grape varieties which do not comply with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, in the case of the Member States referred to in paragraph 3. 5. Areas planted with wine grape varieties for the purpose of wine production planted in breach of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 shall be grubbed up. However, there shall be no obligation to grub up such areas where the relevant production is intended exclusively for consumption by the wine-producer's household. 6. Areas planted for purposes other than wine production with vine varieties which, in the case of Member States other than those referred to in paragraph 3, are not classified or which, in the case of Member States referred to in paragraph 3, do not comply with paragraph 2, second subparagraph, shall not be subject to a grubbing up obligation. The planting and replanting of the vine varieties referred to in the first subparagraph for purposes other than wine production shall not be subject to the scheme of authorisations for vine planting laid down in Part II, Title I, Chapter III.
Article 82 Specific use of wine not conforming to the categories listed in Part II of Annex VII
Except for bottled wine in respect of which there is evidence that bottling was performed before 1 September 1971, wine produced from wine grape varieties listed in the classifications drawn up in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 81(2) but not conforming to one of the categories laid down in Part II of Annex VII shall be used only for consumption by individual wine-producers' households, for the production of wine vinegar or for distillation.
Article 83 National rules for certain products and sectors
1. Notwithstanding Article 75(2), Member States may adopt or maintain national rules laying down different quality levels for spreadable fats. Such rules shall allow those quality levels to be assessed on the basis of criteria relating, in particular, to the raw materials used, the organoleptic characteristics of the products and their physical and microbiological stability. Member States making use of the option provided for in the first subparagraph shall ensure that other Member States' products complying with the criteria laid down by those national rules may, in a non-discriminatory way, use terms which state that those criteria have been complied with. 2. Member States may limit or prohibit the use of certain oenological practices and provide for more stringent rules for wines authorised under Union law produced in their territory with a view to reinforcing the preservation of the essential characteristics of wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication and of sparkling wines and liqueur wines. 3. Member States may allow the experimental use of unauthorised oenological practices. 4. In order to ensure the correct and transparent application of this Article, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 setting out the conditions for the application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, as well as the conditions for the holding, circulation and use of the products obtained from the experimental practices referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article. 5. Member States may only adopt or maintain additional national provisions on products covered by a Union marketing standard if those provisions comply with Union law, in particular the principle of free movement of goods, and subject to Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 28 ). Subsection 3 Optional reserved terms
Article 84 General provision
A scheme for optional reserved terms by sector or by product shall be established in order to make it easier for producers of agricultural products that have value-adding characteristics or attributes to communicate those characteristics or attributes within the internal market, and in particular to support and complement the specific marketing standards. This Subsection shall not apply to wine products referred to in Article 92(1).
Article 85 Existing optional reserved terms
1. The optional reserved terms covered by this scheme on 20 December 2013 are listed in Annex IX and the conditions of their use shall be laid down pursuant to point (a) of Article 86. 2. The optional reserved terms referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall remain in force, subject to any amendment, unless cancelled pursuant to Article 86.
Article 86 Reservation, amendment and cancellation of optional reserved terms
In order to take account of the expectations of consumers, developments in scientific and technical knowledge, the situation in the market and developments in marketing standards and in international standards, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227: (a) reserving an additional optional reserved term, laying down its conditions of use; (b) amending the conditions of use of an optional reserved term; or (c) cancelling an optional reserved term.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 86 Reservation, amendment and cancellation of optional reserved terms):
In order to take account of the expectations of consumers, including as regards production methods and sustainability in the supply chain, developments in scientific and technical knowledge, the situation in the market and developments in marketing standards and in international standards, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227: (a) reserving an additional optional reserved term, laying down its conditions of use; (b) amending the conditions of use of an optional reserved term; or (c) cancelling an optional reserved term.
Article 87 Additional optional reserved terms
1. A term shall be eligible to be reserved as an additional optional reserved term only if it fulfils all of the following requirements: (a) the term relates to a characteristic of a product or to a farming or processing attribute and relates to a sector or product; (b) the use of the term enables clearer communication of the added value of the product by its specific characteristics or farming or processing attributes; (c) when the product is placed on the market, the characteristic or attribute referred to in point (a) is identifiable by consumers in several Member States; (d) the conditions and use of the term are in conformity with Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 29 ) or Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. When introducing an additional optional reserved term, the Commission shall take account of any relevant international standard and of the existing reserved terms for the products or sectors involved. 2. In order to take the characteristics of certain sectors as well as consumer expectations into account, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down further details on the requirements for the introduction of an additional reserved term, as referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
Article 88 Restrictions on use of optional reserved terms
1. An optional reserved term may only be used to describe products that conform to the applicable conditions of use. 2. Member States shall adopt appropriate measures to ensure that product labelling does not give rise to confusion with optional reserved terms. 3. In order to ensure that products described by means of optional reserved terms conform to the applicable conditions of use, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down additional rules on the use of optional reserved terms. Subsection 4 Marketing standards related to import and export
Article 89 General provisions
In order to take into account the specific characteristics of trade between the Union and certain third countries and the special character of certain agricultural products, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 concerning: (a) the conditions under which imported products are considered to have an equivalent level of conformity to the Union marketing standards and conditions allowing derogation from Article 74; and (b) the rules concerning the application of the marketing standards to products exported from the Union.
Article 90 Special provisions for the imports of wine
1. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the provisions concerning designation of origin and geographical indications and labelling of wine set out in Section 2 of this Chapter, and the definitions, designations and sales descriptions referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall apply to products imported into the Union and falling within CN codes 2009 61 , 2009 69 and 2204 . 2. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be produced in accordance with oenological practices authorised by the Union pursuant to this Regulation or, prior to the authorisation pursuant to Article 80(3), produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV. 3. The import of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the presentation of: (a) a certificate evincing compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, drawn up by a competent body, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the product's country of origin; (b) an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the product's country of origin, if the product is intended for direct human consumption. Subsection 5 Common provisions
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 90 Special provisions for the imports of wine):
1. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the provisions concerning designation of origin and geographical indications and labelling of wine set out in Section 2 of this Chapter, and the definitions, designations and sales descriptions referred to in Article 78 of this Regulation shall apply to products imported into the Union and falling within CN codes 2009 61 , 2009 69 , 2204 and, where applicable, ex 2202 99 19 (other, de-alcoholised wine with an alcoholic strength by volume not exceeding 0,5 %) 2. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, products referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be produced in accordance with oenological practices authorised by the Union pursuant to this Regulation or, prior to the authorisation pursuant to Article 80(3), produced in accordance with oenological practices recommended and published by the OIV. 3. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the import of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the presentation of: (a) a certificate evincing compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, drawn up by a competent body, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the product's country of origin; (b) an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the product's country of origin, if the product is intended for direct human consumption. Save as otherwise provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with the TFEU, the import of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the presentation of: (a) a certificate evincing compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, drawn up by a competent body, included on a list to be made public by the Commission, in the product's country of origin; (b) an analysis report drawn up by a body or department designated by the product's country of origin, if the product is intended for direct human consumption. Subsection 5 Common provisions
Article 91 Implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure
The Commission may adopt implementing acts: (a) establishing the list of milk and milk products referred to in the second paragraph of point 5 of Part III of Annex VII and spreadable fats referred to in point (a) of the sixth paragraph of point I of Part VII of Annex VII, on the basis of indicative lists of products which Member States regard as corresponding, in their territory, to those provisions and which Member States shall send to the Commission; (b) laying down rules for the implementation of the marketing standards by sector or product; (c) laying down rules for determining whether products have undergone processes contrary to the authorised oenological practices; (d) laying down rules for the methods of analysis for determining the characteristics of products; (e) laying down rules for fixing the tolerance level; (f) laying down rules for the implementation of the measures referred to in Article 89; (g) laying down rules for the identification or registration of the producer and/or the industrial facilities in which the product has been prepared or processed, for the certification procedures and for the commercial documents, accompanying documents and records to be kept. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 92 Scope
1. Rules on designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms laid down in this Section shall apply to the products referred to in points 1, 3 to 6, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 16 of Part II of Annex VII. 2. The rules referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on: (a) protecting the legitimate interests of consumers and producers; (b) ensuring the smooth operation of the internal market in the products concerned; and (c) promoting the production of quality products referred to in this Section, whilst allowing national quality policy measures. Subsection 2 Designations of origin and geographical indications
Article 93 Definitions
1. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "a designation of origin" means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional and duly justifiable cases, a country used to describe a product referred to in Article 92(1) fulfilling the following requirements: (i) the quality and characteristics of the product are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors; (ii) the grapes from which the product is produced come exclusively from that geographical area; (iii) the production takes place in that geographical area; and (iv) the product is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera ; (a) "a designation of origin" means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional and duly justifiable cases, a country used to describe a product referred to in Article 92(1) fulfilling the following requirements: (i) the quality and characteristics of the product are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors; (ii) the grapes from which the product is produced come exclusively from that geographical area; (iii) the production takes place in that geographical area; and (iv) the product is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera ; (b) "a geographical indication" means an indication referring to a region, a specific place or, in exceptional and duly justifiable cases, a country, used to describe a product referred to in Article 92(1) fulfilling the following requirements: (i) it possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin; (ii) at least 85 % of the grapes used for its production come exclusively from that geographical area; (iii) its production takes place in that geographical area; and (iv) it is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera or a cross between the Vitis vinifera species and other species of the genus Vitis . (b) "a geographical indication" means an indication referring to a region, a specific place or, in exceptional and duly justifiable cases, a country, used to describe a product referred to in Article 92(1) fulfilling the following requirements: (i) it possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin; (ii) at least 85 % of the grapes used for its production come exclusively from that geographical area; (iii) its production takes place in that geographical area; and (iv) it is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera or a cross between the Vitis vinifera species and other species of the genus Vitis . 2. Certain traditionally used names shall constitute a designation of origin where they: (a) designate a wine; (b) refer to a geographical name; (c) fulfil the requirements referred to in points (a)(i) to (iv) of paragraph 1; and (d) have undergone the procedure conferring protection on designations of origin and geographical indications laid down in this Subsection. 3. Designations of origin and geographical indications, including those relating to geographical areas in third countries, shall be eligible for protection in the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in this Subsection. 4. Production as referred to in point (a)(iii) of paragraph 1 shall cover all the operations involved, from the harvesting of the grapes to the completion of the wine-making processes, with the exception of any post-production processes. 5. For the purpose of the application of point (b)(ii) of paragraph 1, the maximum 15 % share of grapes which may originate outside the demarcated area shall originate from the Member State or third country in which the demarcated area is situated.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 93 Definitions):
1. For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "a designation of origin" means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional and duly justifiable cases, a country used to describe a product referred to in Article 92(1) fulfilling the following requirements: (i) the quality and characteristics of the product are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors; (ii) the grapes from which the product is produced come exclusively from that geographical area; (iii) the production takes place in that geographical area; and (iv) the product is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera ; (b) "a geographical indication" means an indication referring to a region, a specific place or, in exceptional and duly justifiable cases, a country, used to describe a product referred to in Article 92(1) fulfilling the following requirements: (i) it possesses a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics attributable to that geographical origin; (ii) at least 85 % of the grapes used for its production come exclusively from that geographical area; (iii) its production takes place in that geographical area; and (iv) it is obtained from vine varieties belonging to Vitis vinifera or a cross between the Vitis vinifera species and other species of the genus Vitis . 2. Certain traditionally used names shall constitute a designation of origin where they: (a) designate a wine; (b) refer to a geographical name; (c) fulfil the requirements referred to in points (a)(i) to (iv) of paragraph 1; and (d) have undergone the procedure conferring protection on designations of origin and geographical indications laid down in this Subsection. 3. Designations of origin and geographical indications, including those relating to geographical areas in third countries, shall be eligible for protection in the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in this Subsection. 4. Production as referred to in point (a)(iii) of paragraph 1 shall cover all the operations involved, from the harvesting of the grapes to the completion of the wine-making processes, with the exception of any post-production processes. 5. For the purpose of the application of point (b)(ii) of paragraph 1, the maximum 15 % share of grapes which may originate outside the demarcated area shall originate from the Member State or third country in which the demarcated area is situated.
Article 94 Applications for protection
1. Applications for protection of names as designations of origin or geographical indications shall include a technical file containing: (a) the name to be protected; (b) the name and address of the applicant; (c) a product specification, as referred to in paragraph 2; and (d) a single document summarising the product specification referred to in paragraph 2. 2. The product specification shall enable interested parties to verify the relevant conditions of production relating to the designation of origin or geographical indication. The product specification shall at least consist of: (b) a description of the wine or wines: (i) in respect of a designation of origin, the principal analytical and organoleptic characteristics; (ii) in respect of a geographical indication, the principal analytical characteristics as well as an evaluation or indication of its organoleptic characteristics; (b) a description of the wine or wines: (i) in respect of a designation of origin, the principal analytical and organoleptic characteristics; (ii) in respect of a geographical indication, the principal analytical characteristics as well as an evaluation or indication of its organoleptic characteristics; (c) where applicable, the specific oenological practices used to make the wine or wines, as well as the relevant restrictions on making them; (d) the demarcation of the geographical area concerned; (e) the maximum yields per hectare; (f) an indication of the wine grape variety or varieties that the wine or wines are obtained from; (g) the details bearing out the link referred to in point (a)(i) or, as the case may be, in point (b)(i) of Article 93(1); (h) applicable requirements laid down in Union or national legislation or, where provided for by Member States, by an organisation which manages the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication, having regard to the fact that such requirements must be objective, non-discriminatory and compatible with Union law; (i) the name and address of the authorities or bodies verifying compliance with the provisions of the product specification, and their specific tasks. 3. Where the application for protection concerns a geographical area in a third country, it shall contain, in addition to the elements provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2, proof that the name concerned is protected in its country of origin.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 94 Applications for protection):
1. Applications for protection of names as designations of origin or geographical indications shall include a technical file containing: (a) the name to be protected; (b) the name and address of the applicant; (c) a product specification, as referred to in paragraph 2; and (d) a single document summarising the product specification referred to in paragraph 2. 2. The product specification shall enable interested parties to verify the relevant conditions of production relating to the designation of origin or geographical indication. The product specification shall at least consist of: (b) a description of the wine or wines: (i) in respect of a designation of origin, the principal analytical and organoleptic characteristics; (ii) in respect of a geographical indication, the principal analytical characteristics as well as an evaluation or indication of its organoleptic characteristics; (c) where applicable, the specific oenological practices used to make the wine or wines, as well as the relevant restrictions on making them; (d) the demarcation of the geographical area concerned; (e) the maximum yields per hectare; (f) an indication of the wine grape variety or varieties that the wine or wines are obtained from; (g) the details bearing out the link referred to in point (a)(i) or, as the case may be, in point (b)(i) of Article 93(1); (h) applicable requirements laid down in Union or national legislation or, where provided for by Member States, by an organisation which manages the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication, having regard to the fact that such requirements must be objective, non-discriminatory and compatible with Union law; (i) the name and address of the authorities or bodies verifying compliance with the provisions of the product specification, and their specific tasks. 3. Where the application for protection concerns a geographical area in a third country, it shall contain, in addition to the elements provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2, proof that the name concerned is protected in its country of origin.
Article 95 Applicants
1. Any interested group of producers, or in exceptional and duly justifiable cases a single producer, may apply for the protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication. Other interested parties may participate in the application. 2. Producers may apply for protection only for wines which they produce. 3. In the case of a name designating a trans-border geographical area or a traditional name connected to a trans-border geographical area, a joint application may be submitted.
Article 96 Preliminary national procedure
1. Applications for protection of a designation of origin or a geographical indication for wines originating in the Union shall be subject to a preliminary national procedure. 2. The application for protection shall be filed with the Member State in the territory of which the designation of origin or geographical indication originates. 3. The Member State with which the application for protection is filed shall examine it in order to verify whether it meets the conditions set out in this Subsection. That Member State shall carry out a national procedure ensuring adequate publication of the application and providing for a period of at least two months from the date of publication within which any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and resident or established on its territory may object to the proposed protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement with that Member State. 4. If the Member State assessing the application considers that the designation of origin or the geographical indication does not comply with the conditions laid down in this Subsection or is incompatible with Union law, it shall reject the application. 5. If the Member State assessing the application considers that the requirements are fulfilled, it shall carry out a national procedure which ensures adequate publication of the product specification at least on the Internet and forward the application to the Commission.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 96 Preliminary national procedure):
1. Applications for protection of a designation of origin or a geographical indication for wines originating in the Union shall be subject to a preliminary national procedure. 2. The application for protection shall be filed with the Member State in the territory of which the designation of origin or geographical indication originates. 3. The Member State with which the application for protection is filed shall examine it in order to verify whether it meets the conditions set out in this Subsection. That Member State shall carry out a national procedure ensuring adequate publication of the application and providing for a period of at least two months from the date of publication within which any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and resident or established on its territory may object to the proposed protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement with that Member State. 4. If the Member State assessing the application considers that the designation of origin or the geographical indication does not comply with the conditions laid down in this Subsection or is incompatible with Union law, it shall reject the application. 5. If the Member State assessing the application considers that the requirements are fulfilled, it shall carry out a national procedure which ensures adequate publication of the product specification at least on the Internet and forward the application to the Commission. When forwarding an application for protection to the Commission under the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the Member State shall include a declaration that it considers that the application lodged by the applicant meets the conditions for protection under this Section and the provisions adopted pursuant thereto and that it certifies that the single document referred to in Article 94(1), point (d), constitutes a faithful summary of the product specification. Member States shall inform the Commission of any admissible oppositions submitted under the national procedure. 6. The Member State shall inform the Commission without delay if any proceedings are initiated before a national court or other national body concerning an application for protection that the Member State has forwarded to the Commission, in accordance with paragraph 5, and if the application has been invalidated at national level by an immediately applicable but not final judicial decision.
Article 97 Scrutiny by the Commission
1. The Commission shall make public the date of submission of the application for protection of the designation of origin or geographical indication. 2. The Commission shall examine whether the applications for protection as referred to in Article 94 meet the conditions laid down in this Subsection. 3. Where the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in this Subsection are met, it shall adopt implementing acts concerning the publication, in the Official Journal of the European Union , of the single document referred to in point (d) of Article 94(1) and of the reference to the publication of the product specification made in the course of the preliminary national procedure. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3). 4. Where the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in this Subsection are not met, it shall adopt implementing acts rejecting the application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 97 Scrutiny by the Commission):
1. The Commission shall make public the date of submission of the application for protection of the designation of origin or geographical indication. 2. Scrutiny by the Commission should not exceed a period of six months from the date of receipt of the application from the Member State. Where that period is exceeded, the Commission shall inform the applicants of the reasons for the delay, in writing. The Commission shall be exempted from the obligation to meet the deadline to perform the scrutiny referred to in paragraph 2, second subparagraph, and to inform the applicant of the reasons for the delay where it receives a communication from a Member State, concerning an application for registration lodged with the Commission in accordance with Article 96(5), which either: (a) informs the Commission that the application has been invalidated at national level by an immediately applicable but not final judicial decision; or (b) requests the Commission to suspend the scrutiny referred to in paragraph 2 because national judicial proceedings have been initiated to challenge the validity of the application and the Member State considers that those proceedings are based on valid grounds. The exemption shall have effect until the Commission is informed by the Member State that the original application has been restored or that the Member State withdraws its request for suspension. 4. Where, on the basis of the scrutiny carried out pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in Articles 93, 100 and 101 are met, it shall adopt implementing acts concerning the publication, in the Official Journal of the European Union , of the single document referred to in Article 94(1), point (d), and of the reference to the publication of the product specification made in the course of the preliminary national procedure. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3). Where, on the basis of the scrutiny carried out pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, the Commission considers that the conditions laid down in Articles 93, 100 and 101 are not met, it shall adopt implementing acts rejecting the application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 98 Objection procedure
Within two months from the date of the publication of the single document as referred to in point (d) of Article 94(1), any Member State or third country, or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and resident or established in a Member State other than that applying for the protection or in a third country, may object to the proposed protection by submitting to the Commission a duly substantiated statement concerning the conditions of eligibility as laid down in this Subsection. In the case of natural or legal persons resident or established in third countries, such a statement shall be submitted, either directly or via the authorities of the third country concerned, within the two month period referred to in the first paragraph.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 98 Objection procedure):
1. Within three months from the date of publication of the single document referred to in Article 94(1), point (d), in the Official Journal of the European Union , the authorities of a Member State or of a third country, or any natural or legal person residing or established in a third country and having a legitimate interest, may submit a reasoned statement of objection to the Commission opposing the proposed protection. Any natural or legal person residing or established in a Member State other than the Member State that forwarded the application for protection and having a legitimate interest, may submit the statement of objection via the authorities of the Member State in which it is resident or established within a time limit permitting a statement of objections to be submitted pursuant to the first subparagraph. 2. If the Commission considers that the objection is admissible, it shall invite the authority or natural or legal person that lodged the objection and the authority or natural or legal person that lodged the application for protection to engage in appropriate consultations for a reasonable period that shall not exceed three months. The invitation shall be issued within a period of five months from the date on which the application for protection to which the reasoned statement of objection relates was published in the Official Journal of the European Union . The invitation shall be accompanied by a copy of the reasoned statement of objection. At any time during these three months, the Commission may extend the deadline for the consultations by a maximum of three months at the request of the authority or natural or legal person that lodged the application. 3. The authority or person that lodged the objection and the authority or person that lodged the application for protection shall start the consultations referred to in paragraph 2 without undue delay. They shall provide each other with the information necessary to assess whether the application for protection complies with this Regulation and the provisions adopted pursuant thereto. 4. If the authority or person that lodged the objection and the authority or person that lodged the application for protection reach an agreement, either the applicant established in the third country or the authorities of the Member State or of the third country from which the application for protection was lodged shall notify the Commission of the results of the consultations and of all the factors which enabled that agreement to be reached, including the opinions of the parties. If the details published pursuant to Article 97(4) have been substantially amended, the Commission shall repeat the scrutiny referred to in Article 97(2) after a national procedure ensuring adequate publication of those amended details has been carried out. Where, following the agreement, there are no amendments to the product specification or where the amendments to the product specification are not substantial, the Commission shall adopt a decision in accordance with Article 99(1) conferring protection on the designation of origin or geographical indication, notwithstanding the receipt of an admissible statement of objection. 5. If no agreement is reached, either the applicant established in the third country or the authorities of the Member State or of the third country from which the application for protection was lodged shall notify the Commission of the results of the consultations carried out and of all the related information and documents. The Commission shall adopt a decision in accordance with Article 99(2) either conferring protection or rejecting the application.
Article 99 Decision on protection
On the basis of the information available to the Commission upon the completion of the objection procedure referred to in Article 98, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts either conferring protection on the designation of origin or geographical indication which meets the conditions laid down in this Subsection and is compatible with Union law, or rejecting the application where those conditions are not met. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 99 Decision on protection):
1. Where the Commission has not received an admissible statement of objection in accordance with Article 98, it shall adopt implementing acts conferring protection. Those implementing acts shall be adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3). 2. Where the Commission has received an admissible statement of objection, it shall adopt implementing acts either conferring protection or rejecting the application. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 3. Protection conferred under this Article is without prejudice to the obligation of producers to comply with other Union rules, in particular those relating to the placing of products on the market and to food labelling.
Article 100 Homonyms
1. A name for which an application is submitted and which is wholly or partially homonymous with a name already registered under this Regulation shall be registered with due regard to local and traditional usage and any risk of confusion. A homonymous name which misleads the consumer into believing that products come from another territory shall not be registered even if the name is accurate as far as the actual territory, region or place of origin of those products is concerned. A registered homonymous name may be used only if there is a sufficient distinction in practice between the homonym registered subsequently and the name already in the register, having regard to the need to treat the producers concerned in an equitable manner and the need to avoid misleading the consumer. 2. Paragraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis if a name for which an application is submitted is wholly or partially homonymous with a geographical indication protected under the national law of Member States. 3. Where the name of a wine grape variety contains or consists of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, that name shall not be used for the purposes of labelling agricultural products. In order to take into account existing labelling practices, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down exceptions from that rule. 4. The protection of designations of origin and geographical indications of products covered by Article 93 of this Regulation shall be without prejudice to protected geographical indications applying to spirit drinks as defined in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 30 ).
Article 101 Additional grounds for refusal of protection
1. A name that has become generic shall not be protected as a designation of origin or a geographical indication. For the purposes of this Section, a "name that has become generic" means the name of a wine which, although it relates to the place or the region where this product was originally produced or marketed, has become the common name of a wine in the Union. To establish whether or not a name has become generic, the relevant factors shall be taken into account, in particular: (a) the existing situation in the Union, notably in areas of consumption; (b) the relevant Union or national law. 2. A name shall not be protected as a designation of origin or geographical indication where, in the light of a trade mark's reputation and renown, protection could mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the wine.
Article 102 Relationship with trade marks
1. The registration of a trade mark that contains or consists of a protected designation of origin or a geographical indication which does not comply with the product specification concerned or the use of which falls under Article 103(2), and that relates to a product falling under one of the categories listed in Part II of Annex VII shall be: (a) refused if the application for registration of the trade mark is submitted after the date of submission of the application for protection of the designation of origin or geographical indication to the Commission and the designation of origin or geographical indication is subsequently protected; or (b) invalidated. 2. Without prejudice to Article 101(2), a trade mark referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which has been applied for, registered or established by use in good faith, if that possibility is provided for by the law concerned, in the territory of the Union either before the date of protection of the designation of origin or geographical indication in the country of origin, or before 1 January 1996, may continue to be used and renewed notwithstanding the protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication, provided that no grounds for the trade mark's invalidity or revocation exist under Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 31 ) or under Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 ( 32 ). In such cases, the use of the designation of origin or geographical indication shall be permitted alongside the relevant trade marks.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 102 Relationship with trade marks):
1. Where a designation of origin or a geographical indication is registered under this Regulation, the registration of a trade mark the use of which would contravene Article 103(2), and which relates to a product falling under one of the categories listed in Annex VII, Part II, shall be refused if the application for registration of the trade mark was submitted after the date of submission of the registration application in respect of the designation of origin or the geographical indication to the Commission. Trade marks registered in breach of the first subparagraph shall be invalidated. 2. Without prejudice to Article 101(2) of this Regulation, a trade mark the use of which contravenes Article 103(2) of this Regulation, which has been applied for, registered or established by use, if that possibility is provided for by the legislation concerned, in good faith within the territory of the Union, before the date on which the application for protection of the designation of origin or geographical indication was submitted to the Commission, may continue to be used and renewed, notwithstanding the registration of a designation of origin or geographical indication, provided that no grounds for the trade mark’s invalidity or revocation exist under Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 14 ) or under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 15 ). In such cases, the use of the designation of origin or geographical indication shall be permitted as well as use of the relevant trade marks.
Article 103 Protection
1. A protected designation of origin and a protected geographical indication may be used by any operator marketing a wine which has been produced in conformity with the corresponding product specification. 2. A protected designation of origin and a protected geographical indication, as well as the wine using that protected name in conformity with the product specifications, shall be protected against: (a) any direct or indirect commercial use of that protected name: (i) by comparable products not complying with the product specification of the protected name; or (ii) in so far as such use exploits the reputation of a designation of origin or a geographical indication; (a) any direct or indirect commercial use of that protected name: (i) by comparable products not complying with the product specification of the protected name; or (ii) in so far as such use exploits the reputation of a designation of origin or a geographical indication; (b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product or service is indicated or if the protected name is translated, transcripted or transliterated or accompanied by an expression such as "style", "type", "method", "as produced in", "imitation", "flavour", "like" or similar; (c) any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to the wine product concerned, as well as the packing of the product in a container liable to convey a false impression as to its origin; (d) any other practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. 3. Protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications shall not become generic in the Union within the meaning of Article 101(1).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Financial Regulation 1 sets out the principles and procedures governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget and the control of the EU funds. Over the last 30 years, the number of general financial rules contained in the Financial Regulation has increased sharply 2 . In addition, a number of sectoral financial rules have emerged: the rules for participation to the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 3 , the Common Provisions to the European Structural and Investment Funds 4 and the Common Implementing Rules for the External Action 5 . Users of EU funds have repeatedly complained about the proliferation of rules both at general and at sectoral level, their heterogeneity and their complexity due to the fact that they follow the architecture of the programme and multiple layers of controls. In addition, the complexity of the financial set of rules has slowed down implementation of the EU funds, making it costly and prone to errors. A first step towards more coherent and simpler financial rules was achieved in 2012: the Commission tabled proposals for the programmes covered by the MFF 2014-2020 which reduced the number of programmes and instruments, grouped them under a single framework with common rules, simplified procedures for application and declaration of costs by final beneficiaries, facilitated the deployment of innovative financial instruments, enabled EU Trust-Funds and improved the cost-efficiency of controls. Recent revisions have aligned the Financial Regulation on the results of the negotiation to the MFF 2014-2020 (2013 revision) as well as to the new Procurement Directive (2015 revision). However, there is room for further simplification . This is confirmed by the experience gained since 2014 and by the work of the High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds 6 . The public consultation on the revision of the Financial Regulation 7 also shows stakeholders’ clear expectations in the area. Efforts must therefore continue in order to remove bottlenecks, ensure synergies and complementarities between ESI Funds and the other EU funds and improve efficiency of delivery and control requirements. Simpler and more flexible financial rules will contribute to optimising spending and impact of the MFF 2014-2020 and constitute as such one of the key elements of the Commission's initiative for a Budget Focused on Results (BFOR) which aims at making sure that resources are allocated to priorities and that every action delivers maximum performance and added value 8 . In addition, this will reduce the costs related to implementation of EU rules as well the number of errors. Simpler and more flexible EU financial rules are key in enhancing EU budget’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and to respond to unexpected developments. The present legislative proposal forms an integral part of the mid-term review/revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 9 . It contributes to two of its main objectives: simplification and flexibility . The Commission therefore proposes in a single act an ambitious revision of the general financial rules accompanied by corresponding changes to the sectorial financial rules set out in 15 legislative acts concerning multiannual programmes. The inclusion of sectoral changes in the same legislative proposal aims at ensuring a coherent negotiation process as well as at facilitating a speedy adoption by the legislator. The focus is put on the following key areas: 1 . Simplification for recipients of EU funds: many measures aim at simplifying life for recipients of EU funds. They relate to grants (removal of the non-cumulative award check for low-value grants and of the non-profit principle; simpler rules for "contribution in kind" valuation ; recognition of volunteer work ; grant awards without calls for proposal under specific conditions) and simplified forms of grants (Title VIII). 2 . From multi ple layers of controls to cross reliance on audit, assessment or authorisation, and harmonisation of reporting requirements: the aim of these measures is to encourage reliance as far as possible on one single audit, assessment or authorisation (conformity to State aids for instance), when the audit , assessment or authorisation meet s the necessary conditions to be taken into account in the EU system. More generally, rules for implementing partners (international organisations, EIB/EIF, national promotional banks, national agencies, NGOs) will be simplified by relying increasingly on their procedures and policies once assessed positively. Financial f ramework partnership agreements concluded with long term partners will allow progressing in the harmonisation of audit, reporting and other administrative requirements among donors (Title V Articles 122, 123 and 126). 3 . Allowing the application of only one set of rules to hybrid actions or in the case of combination of measures or instruments: the proposal aims at achieving further simplification for the partners of the EU by a number of measures to avoid the parallel application of different rules and procedures, notably through facilitating the combination of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) funding with financial instruments and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (Title V). 4 . More effective use of financial instruments: optimise use of reflows, ensuring a level playing field among key EU implementing partners, reducing burdensome requirements related to publication of individual data of final recipients or to the exclusion criteria (Title X). 5 . More flexible budget management: the proposal sets out several ways for more budgetary flexibility, in order to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen challenges and new tasks more effectively and to achieve swifter crisis management - among which the creation of a " flexibility cushion" for unforeseen needs and new crises in the external actions geographic instruments budget , a more efficient activation of the solidarity and globalization adjustment funds, and the extension of Trust-Funds to internal policies (Articles 14 and 22 7 ) , the creation of a EU crisis reserve with the reuse of decommitted appropriations, and for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the possibility that financial operations other than financial instruments generate a contingent liability for the Union exceeding the financial assets provided to cover the financial liability of the Union (Article 203) and the creation of a common provisioning fund holding the resources provisioned for financial operations (Article 2 05 ). R ecent initiatives (such as the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) or the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD)), have indeed shown the need to fully use the leverage of the EU budget by creating non-provisioned contingent liabilities. Title X sets the framework to authorise, manage and control these financial risks. 6 . F ocus on results and streamlining of reporting: a stronger focus on results through lump sums, prizes, payment based on output and results rather than on reimbursement of costs, payment against conditions to be fulfilled (Article 121, Title X III ). This should contribute to further reducing the costs of implementing EU funds as well as the number of errors. On the reporting side, reports are regrouped around the draft budget and the integrated financial reporting package, in order to increase efficiency and transparency both towards the general public and the budgetary authority (Articles 39 and 23 9 -24 5 ). 7. Simpler and leaner EU administration: facilitating agreements or delegations between Institutions or bodies in order to pool the implementation of administrative appropriations in European Offices or within Executive Agencies (Articles 57, 58, 64, 65 and 6 8 ); merging consultative panels competent for financial irregularities (Article 73 (6)) with the EDES panel (Article 139 ) and moving from annual to multiannual financing decisions (Article 10 8 ). 8. Providing possibility for citizen engagement : t he proposal provides a possibility for citizens to be consulted on the implementation of the Union budget by the Commission, Member States and any other entity implementing the Union budget (А rticle 54 ) . In simplifying and making EU financial rules more flexible, the present proposal paves the way for the preparation of the next generation of spending programmes (post-2020).
Revised version (Article 103 Protection):
1. A protected designation of origin and a protected geographical indication may be used by any operator marketing a wine which has been produced in conformity with the corresponding product specification. 2. A protected designation of origin and a protected geographical indication, as well as the wine using that protected name in conformity with the product specifications, shall be protected against: (a) any direct or indirect commercial use of that protected name: (i) by comparable products not complying with the product specification of the protected name; or (ii) in so far as such use exploits the reputation of a designation of origin or a geographical indication; (b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product or service is indicated or if the protected name is translated, transcripted or transliterated or accompanied by an expression such as "style", "type", "method", "as produced in", "imitation", "flavour", "like" or similar; (c) any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to the wine product concerned, as well as the packing of the product in a container liable to convey a false impression as to its origin; (d) any other practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. 3. Protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications shall not become generic in the Union within the meaning of Article 101(1).
Article 104 Register
The Commission shall establish and maintain an electronic register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications for wine which shall be publicly accessible. Designations of origin and geographical indications pertaining to products of third countries that are protected in the Union pursuant to an international agreement to which the Union is a contracting party may be entered in the register. Unless specifically identified in that agreement as protected designations of origin within the meaning of this Regulation, such names shall be entered in the register as protected geographical indications.
Article 105 Amendments to product specifications
An applicant satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 95 may apply for approval of an amendment to the product specification of a protected designation of origin or of a protected geographical indication, in particular to take account of developments in scientific and technical knowledge or to redemarcate the geographical area referred to in point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 94(2). Applications shall describe and state reasons for the amendments requested.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 105 Amendments to product specifications):
1. An applicant satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 95 may apply for approval of an amendment to the product specification of a protected designation of origin or of a protected geographical indication, in particular to take account of developments in scientific and technical knowledge or to modify the demarcation of the geographical area referred to in Article 94(2), second subparagraph, point (d). Applications shall describe and state reasons for the amendments requested. 2. Amendments to a product specification shall be classified into two categories as regards their importance: Union amendments requiring an objection procedure at Union level and standard amendments to be dealt with at Member State or third country level. For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘Union amendment’ means an amendment to a product specification that: (a) includes a change in the name of the protected designation of origin or the protected geographical indication; (b) consists of a change, a deletion or an addition of a category of grapevine products referred to in Annex VII, Part II; (d) entails further restrictions on the marketing of the product. ‘Standard amendment’ means any amendment to a product specification that is not a Union amendment. ‘Temporary amendment’ means a standard amendment concerning a temporary change in the product specification resulting from the imposition of obligatory sanitary and phytosanitary measures by the public authorities or linked to natural disasters or adverse weather conditions formally recognised by the competent authorities. entails further restrictions on the marketing of the product. ‘Standard amendment’ means any amendment to a product specification that is not a Union amendment. ‘Temporary amendment’ means a standard amendment concerning a temporary change in the product specification resulting from the imposition of obligatory sanitary and phytosanitary measures by the public authorities or linked to natural disasters or adverse weather conditions formally recognised by the competent authorities. 3. Union amendments shall be approved by the Commission. The approval procedure shall follow the procedure laid down in Article 94 and Articles 96 to 99, mutatis mutandis . Applications for approval of Union amendments submitted by third countries or by third country producers shall contain proof that the requested amendment complies with the laws on the protection of designations of origin or geographical indications in force in that third country. Applications for approval of Union amendments shall relate exclusively to Union amendments. If an application for a Union amendment also relates to standard amendments, the parts relating to standard amendments shall be deemed as not having been submitted, and the procedure for Union amendments shall apply only to the parts relating to that Union amendment. The scrutiny of such applications shall focus on the proposed Union amendments. 4. Standard amendments shall be approved and made public by Member States in whose territory the geographical area of the product concerned is located and communicated to the Commission. As regards third countries, amendments shall be approved in accordance with the law applicable in the third country concerned.
Article 106 Cancellation
The Commission may, on its own initiative or on a duly substantiated request by a Member State, a third country or a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, adopt implementing acts cancelling the protection of a designation of origin or a geographical indication if compliance with the corresponding product specification is no longer ensured. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 106 Cancellation):
The Commission may, on its own initiative or at the duly substantiated request of a Member State, a third country, or a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, adopt implementing acts cancelling the protection of a designation of origin or a geographical indication in one or more of the following circumstances: (a) where compliance with the corresponding product specification is no longer guaranteed; (b) where no product has been placed on the market bearing the designation of origin or geographical indication for at least seven consecutive years; (c) where an applicant satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 95 declares that it no longer wishes to maintain the protection of a designation of origin or a geographical indication. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2).
Article 107 Existing protected wine names
1. Wine names referred to in Articles 51 and 54 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 ( 33 ) and Article 28 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 ( 34 ) shall be automatically protected under this Regulation. The Commission shall list them in the register provided for in Article 104 of this Regulation. 2. The Commission shall take the corresponding formal step of removing wine names to which Article 118s(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 applies from the register provided for in Article 104 of this Regulation by means of implementing acts adopted without applying the procedure referred to in Article 229(2) or (3) of this Regulation. 3. Article 106 shall not apply to existing protected wine names referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article. Until 31 December 2014, the Commission may, on its own initiative, adopt implementing acts cancelling the protection of existing protected wine names referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article if they do not meet the conditions laid down in Article 93. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 229(2). 4. For Croatia, the wine names published in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 35 ) shall be protected under this Regulation, subject to a favourable outcome of the objection procedure. The Commission shall list them in the register provided for in Article 104.
Article 108 Fees
Member States may charge fees to cover their costs, including those incurred in examining the applications for protection, statements of objections, applications for amendments and requests for cancellations under this Subsection.
Article 109 Delegated powers
1. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the production in the demarcated geographical area, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) the additional criteria for the demarcation of the geographical area; and (b) the restrictions and derogations concerning the production in the demarcated geographical area. 2. In order to ensure product quality and traceability, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the conditions under which product specifications may include additional requirements. 3. In order to ensure the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of producers and operators, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on: (a) the type of applicant that may apply for the protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication; (b) the conditions to be followed in respect of an application for the protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication, scrutiny by the Commission, the objection procedure, and procedures for amendment, cancellation and conversion of protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications; (c) the conditions applicable to trans-border applications; (d) the conditions for applications concerning geographical areas in a third country; (e) the date from which a protection or an amendment to a protection shall apply; (f) the conditions related to amendments to product specifications. 4. In order to ensure an adequate level of protection, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on restrictions regarding the protected name. 5. In order to ensure that economic operators and competent authorities are not unduly affected by the application of this Subsection as regards wine names which have been granted protection prior to 1 August 2009, or for which an application for protection has been made prior to that date, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down transitional rules concerning: (a) wine names recognised by Member States as designations of origin or geographical indications by 1 August 2009, and wine names for which an application for protection has been made prior to that date; (b) wines placed on the market or labelled before a specific date; and (c) amendments to the product specifications.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 (the MFF proposal) 1 sets the budgetary framework and main orientations for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). On this basis, the Commission presents a set of regulations laying down the legislative framework for the CAP in the period 2021-2027, together with an impact assessment of alternative scenarios for the evolution of the policy. These proposals provide for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and are presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the no tification by the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union received by European Council on 29 March 2017. The latest reform of the CAP was decided in 2013 and implemented in 2015. Since then, the context in which that reform was forged has shifted significantly. In particular: Agricultural prices have fallen substantially – depressed by macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and other forces. The emphasis of trade negotiations has moved more visibly from multilateral to bilateral deals and the EU has become more open to world markets. The EU has signed up to new international commitments – e.g. concerning climate change mitigation (through COP 21) and broad aspects of international development (through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs), as well as efforts to better respond to other geopolitical developments including migration. These shifts have prompted a public debate about whether the 2013 reform goes far enough to help the CAP adequately meet broad ongoing challenges related to the economic health of the farm sector, care for the environment, action over climate change, and a strong and economic and social fabric for the EU's rural areas – especially in view of emerging opportunities for action in the areas of trade, the bioeconomy, renewable energy, the circular economy and the digital economy. The CAP must be modernised to meet these challenges, simplified to do so with a minimum of administrative burden, and made even more coherent with other EU policies to maximise its contribution to the ten Commission Priorities and the Sustainable Development Objectives. Indeed, as the Commission recalled in its recent Communication on the MFF, a modernised Common Agricultural Policy will need to support the transition towards a fully sustainable agricultural sector and the development of vibrant rural areas, providing secure, safe and high-quality food for over 500 million consumers. Europe needs a smart, resilient, sustainable and competitive agricultural sector in order to ensure the production of safe, high-quality, affordable, nutritious and diverse food for its citizens and a strong socio-economic fabric in rural areas. A modernised Common Agricultural Policy must enhance its European added value by reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition and addressing citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the climate. As foreseen in its Programme of Work for 2017, the Commission consulted widely on the simplification and modernisation of the CAP to maximise its contribution to the Commission's ten priorities and to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This focused on specific policy priorities for the future without prejudice to the financial allocations for the CAP in the next MFF. The process included a large consultation, as well as analysis of available evidence on the performance of the CAP, including the relevant REFIT Platform opinions. The outcome was presented in the Communication adopted on 29 November 2017 and entitled "the Future of Food and Farming". The Communication enables a structured dialogue on the future CAP in EU Institutions as well as with stakeholders. This policy document outlined challenges, objectives and possible avenues for a "future-proof" CAP that needs to be simpler, smarter and modern, and lead the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. In particular, the Commission identified higher environmental and climate action ambition, the better targeting of support and the stronger reliance on the virtuous Research-Innovation-Advice nexus as top priorities of the post-2020 CAP. It also proposed as a way to improve the performance of the CAP a new delivery model (NDM) to shift the policy focus from compliance to performance, and rebalances responsibilities between the EU and the Member State level with more subsidiarity. The new model aims at better achieving EU objectives based on strategic planning, broad policy interventions and common performance indicators, thus improving policy coherence across the future CAP and with other EU objectives.
Revised version (Article 109 Delegated powers):
1. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the production in the demarcated geographical area, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) the additional criteria for the demarcation of the geographical area; and (b) the restrictions and derogations concerning the production in the demarcated geographical area. In order to take into account the specific characteristics of the production in the demarcated geographical area, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down: (a) the additional criteria for the demarcation of the geographical area; and (b) the restrictions and derogations concerning the production in the demarcated geographical area. 2. In order to ensure product quality and traceability, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down the conditions under which product specifications may include additional requirements. In order to ensure the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of producers and operators, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on: (a) the type of applicant that may apply for the protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication; (b) the conditions to be followed in respect of an application for the protection of a designation of origin or geographical indication, scrutiny by the Commission, the objection procedure, and procedures for amendment, cancellation and conversion of protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications; (c) the conditions applicable to trans-border applications; (d) the conditions for applications concerning geographical areas in a third country; (e) the date from which a protection or an amendment to a protection shall apply; (f) the conditions related to amendments to product specifications. 4. In order to ensure an adequate level of protection, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 on restrictions regarding the protected name. In order to ensure that economic operators and competent authorities are not unduly affected by the application of this Subsection as regards wine names which have been granted protection prior to 1 August 2009, or for which an application for protection has been made prior to that date, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 227 laying down transitional rules concerning: (a) wine names recognised by Member States as designations of origin or geographical indications by 1 August 2009, and wine names for which an application for protection has been made prior to that date; (b) wines placed on the market or labelled before a specific date; and (c) amendments to the product specifications.