Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 564/2013
of 18 June 2013
on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:
The structure and amount of the fees payable to the European Chemicals Agency, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agency’), as well as the conditions for payment should be established.
The structure and amount of the fees should take account of the work required by Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 to be carried out by the Agency. Fees should be set at such a level as to ensure that the revenue derived from them, when combined with other sources of the Agency’s revenue, is sufficient to cover the cost of the services delivered.
It follows from Article 80(3)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 that the structure and amount of fees is to take into account whether information has been submitted jointly or separately. In order to reflect the actual work load of the Agency and to promote joint submission of information, it is appropriate to only levy one fee per application, in case several persons apply jointly for the approval of an active substance or the renewal of an approval of an active substance.
Taking into account the Agency’s work required to handle an appeal lodged in accordance with Article 77 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, it is appropriate to levy a fee for such appeals in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 77(1) of that Regulation. However, to avoid penalising persons launching justified appeals, it is appropriate to refund such fees where the appeal is well founded.
Taking into account the reduced work required by the Agency in cases where applications are rejected before or during validation, or withdrawn during their assessment, it is appropriate to provide for partial refund of fees in such cases.
For the purpose of encouraging applications for approval of active substances that are suitable alternatives to approved active substances fulfilling one of the exclusion criteria listed in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, it is appropriate to provide for reimbursement of the fee for such applications.
The fee for applications for inclusion in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of active substances that do not give rise to concern should take into account the estimated work required by the Agency to handle such applications, as well as the public interest in allowing products containing such substances to be authorised.
For the purpose of discouraging applications for approval or renewal of approval of active substances fulfilling one of the substitution criteria listed in Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 as well as applications for authorisation or renewal of products requiring a comparative assessment in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, and of contributing to financing the waivers and reductions provided for by this Regulation, it is appropriate to provide for increased fees for such applications.
Given the Agency’s work required to handle a request for confidentiality in accordance with Article 66(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, it is appropriate to levy a fee for such requests.
It follows from Article 80(3)(f) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 that the deadlines for the payment of fees should be fixed taking due account of the deadlines of the procedures provided for in that Regulation.
The fees set out in this Regulation should be reviewed at appropriate intervals, with a view to aligning the fees with the inflation rate and with the actual costs to the Agency of the services provided. These reviews should take into account the Agency’s increased experience in dealing with applications under the Regulation and the efficiencies thereby gained.
The Standing Committee on Biocidal Products referred to in Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 did not deliver an opinion on the measures provided for in this Regulation. Since an implementing act was deemed to be necessary, the chair submitted the draft implementing act to the appeal committee for further deliberation. The appeal committee did not deliver an opinion,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: