Eurocontrol Technics Ord EUCTF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Sicpa lost EU fuel marking tender

[Chutzpah]

what a load
of BS from Zen on the environmental impact thing, going through my commnications with EU officials nowhere says anything about that. SCHER has given their opinion on another candidate other than GFI being the superior and here´s whats to follow next: 

I can confirm that the evaluation of new candidate markers is on-going and we expect a report in the first quarter of this year. The results will be discussed with experts of the EU Member States and based on the outcome of the tests and of the discussion we will decide how to proceed further. Therefore I cannot give you any indication about a possible future assessment in SCHER. I also cannot provide a new guideline for the completion of the overall process at this stage.
 
As for your question on Annex 5 to the Communication on the Commission Work Programme for 2017, I should indicate that Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No 2011/544 was due for review at the end of 2016 (see Article 2 thereof). As we had not completed our search for a new fiscal marker in 2016, the review concluded that Solvent Yellow 124 should remain the common fiscal marker. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No 2011/544 was repealed by the new Decision (Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/74) which kept Solvent Yellow 124 as the common fiscal marker.
 
We hope that after the testing of the candidate markers is completed we would have identified a better performing marker. If this is the case we could undertake an early review and repeal Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/74 before it is due to expire (end of 2021), as provided for in Article 2 thereof, and possibly introduce a new fiscal marker.

(...)

2.        Repeal of Yellow Solvent and Designation of new Marker if better substance found.  Is this a very straight away process or could take several legislative steps further delaying it?
 
Normally, the process is the following:
-          The Commission prepares a draft implementing decision.
-          The Committee on Excise Duty (all EU Member States are members of it) votes on the proposal. A vote in favour requires qualified majority.
-          If the Committee on Excise Duty votes in favour, the decision is adopted by the Commission and comes into effect on the date designated therein.

Also of interest in case anyone thought this was going to be a speedy process...... 

 "By the end of 2019: A certified reference material (CRM) will be available if a better performing marker can be found as a result of these tests." Is this something that runs afterwards/in parallel and independently of the new substance  having been designated and published on OJ of European Union? Can the new substance then be used by the Member States without the CRM having been published?
 
This is a separate process that will run after the approval of the new marker. The CRM is not a formal requirement for the adoption of a new marker. Please be aware that, depending on the outcome of discussions with EU Member States, the introduction of a new marker might be delayed for a number of reasons (e.g. if time is needed to buy new testing equipment for the laboratories). Thus the production of CRM might be finalised before the introduction of a new marker comes into effect.
 
However I should indicate that it would be an advantage if the CRM is available at the time of implementation as it is a powerful tool of dispute resolution. Therefore, there is a chance that Member States might ask for the postponement of the introduction of a new marker until the CRM becomes available.


Sorry, but nothing to se here. Last one turn off the lights.