15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/1

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8570. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/2

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/3

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/4

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/5

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/7

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes agreements and/or concerted practices between relevant undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA.

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in one or more of the respective seven separate single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA.

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU and the contracting parties to the EEA Agreement.

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringements.

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees.

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines.

12.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case.

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the application of the 2006 Leniency Notice.

14.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

15.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/8

2.1.

On 12 February 2013, the European Commission (‘Commission’) initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) against UBS AG, UBS Securities Japan Co., Ltd, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd, and Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd, (together ‘the settling parties’).

2.2.

On 29 October 2013 the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against ICAP plc, ICAP Management Services Ltd, and ICAP New Zealand Ltd (‘ICAP’).

3.1.

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (4), the Commission adopted a statement of objections (‘SO’), on 29 October 2013, addressed to the settling parties.

The settling parties were alleged to have participated between 2007 and 2010 in one or more of seven bilateral infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, distinct and separate from one another. These infringements concern Japanese Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (‘YIRDs’), referenced to the Japanese Yen LIBOR and in the case of one infringement, also YIRDs referenced to the Euroyen TIBOR. The parties sought to influence the levels of the Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR in order to positively affect the banks' trading positions for derivatives that use these rates as part of their settlement terms.

3.2.

Following the settling parties' confirmation that the allegations contained in the SO reflected the contents of their settlement submissions, on 4 December 2013, the Commission adopted a settlement decision, addressed to all the settling parties, and imposed fines on Citigroup, DB, JPMorgan, RBS and RP Martin.

3.3.

On 12 November 2013, after one meeting with the case team of the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’), ICAP withdrew from the settlement procedure. The investigation against ICAP thus reverted and continued under the standard procedure (see hereafter).

4.1.

On 6 June 2014 the Commission adopted a SO against ICAP. The Commission alleges that ICAP participated, as a facilitator, in six separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU, in relation to the YIRD sector.

4.2.

DG Competition had initially granted ICAP a time-limit of four weeks to reply to the SO, which it extended by two weeks following ICAP's request. Upon ICAP's request, I further extended the time limit to reply to the SO by two extra weeks, until 14 August 2014.

4.3.

In its reply to the SO, ICAP submitted a number of complaints alleging that the Commission had breached the presumption of innocence, ICAP's right of defence and the principles of good administration. All these claims have been duly addressed in the draft decision.

4.4.

The oral hearing took place on 12 September 2014.

4.5.

Following the oral hearing, ICAP requested and obtained access to the settlement decision. DG Competition provided a short time period to ICAP to submit further written observations. In reply to ICAP's request for an extension of the deadline, I informed ICAP that the time limit granted by DG Competition was sufficient to allow it to verify the settlement decision, in particular in relation to the fines methodology that the Commission applied to RP Martin as facilitator and to make further comments in this respect.

4.6.

On 9 October 2014, ICAP submitted to DG Competition a late request for further access to an unspecified number of documents concerning certain turnover-related information that had been submitted to the Commission by the settling banks. DG Competition rejected this request and accordingly ICAP referred the matter to me on 17 October 2014.

4.7.

On 5 November 2014, I rejected ICAP's request, in particular on the basis that there is no general right for a party to obtain the sales data of the other parties during the administrative phase, even if, after the imposition of a fine in a decision, that data may be considered indirectly relevant for the calculation of the fine of the requesting party. Moreover, in the present case, I considered that the information contained in the SO did not justify the need to access the sales data of the other parties on the basis of ICAP's rights of defence.

4.8.

Finally, on 8, 9 and 16 October 2014, ICAP made submissions specifically relating to the Commission's allegations in the Statement of Objections. DG Competition considered all these additional submissions in its draft decision.

5.1.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision addressed to ICAP deals only with objections in respect of which ICAP has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

5.2.

In view of the above, I consider that the effective exercise of ICAP's procedural rights in this case has been respected.

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/10

(1)

The Decision relates to six separate instances of bilateral anticompetitive conduct, relating to Japanese Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (‘Yen Interest Rate Derivatives’ or ‘YIRDs’), referenced to the Japanese Yen LIBOR (‘JPY LIBOR’) in which the addressees of this Decision participated as facilitators.

(2)

The anticompetitive conduct of the banks involved consisted of discussions relating to the level of upcoming JPY LIBOR submissions, revealing their preferences for the direction of future JPY LIBOR movements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information (2). The broker ICAP facilitated the relevant conduct by serving as a conduit for collusive communications (in one of the instances) and by contacting other JPY LIBOR panel banks or disseminating information via manipulated daily ‘Run Thrus’ (3) with the aim of influencing their JPY LIBOR submissions in directions suitable to the participants in the relevant conduct (in the remaining five instances).

(3)

The JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR are important reference interest rates (also called benchmarks) for many financial instruments denominated in Japanese Yen. The JPY LIBOR was set by the British Bankers Association (BBA) and the Euroyen TIBOR was set by the Japanese Bankers Association (JBA). The rates were set daily for different tenors (loan maturities) on the basis of submissions from banks that were members of the JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR panels. These banks were asked to submit, each business day and before a certain time, estimates of interest rates at which they believed they could borrow unsecured funds in a reasonable market size on the London interbank money market (in the case of JPY LIBOR) or estimates of what they believed to be prevailing market rates for transactions between prime banks on the Japan offshore market (in the case of Euroyen TIBOR) for various tenors. The BBA and JBA then calculated, on the basis of an average of these submissions, while excluding the four (in the BBA’s case) and two (in the JBA’s case) highest and lowest submissions, the daily JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR rates for each tenor. The resulting rates were immediately published and available to the public each business day.

(4)

JPY LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR rates are, among others, reflected in the pricing of YIRDs, which are globally traded financial products used by corporations, financial institutions, hedge funds, and other undertakings to manage their interest rate risk exposure (hedging, for both borrowers and investors) or for speculation purposes.

(5)

The most common YIRDs are: (i) forward rate agreements; (ii) interest rate swaps; (iii) interest rate options; and (iv) interest rate futures. YIRDs may be traded over the counter or, in the case of interest rate futures, exchange traded. All these products usually involve a floating rate (the reference interest rate of the contract) and a fixed rate. The fixed rates reflect the market expectations of future reference interest rates and are normally calculated by the financial institutions that take part in YIRD trading on the basis of the so-called yield curves.

(6)

This Decision is addressed to the following legal entities belonging to the ICAP undertaking (hereinafter, ‘the addressees’):

(7)

The case was opened on the basis of an immunity application by UBS on 17 December 2010. On 20 April 2011, the Commission sent requests for information to a number of undertakings active in the YIRD sector. On […], Citigroup submitted an application for immunity and or leniency. On […], Deutsche Bank applied for a reduction of fines. On […], RP Martin applied for a reduction of fines. On […], RBS applied for a reduction of fines.

(8)

On 12 February 2013, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against UBS AG and UBS Securities Japan Co., Ltd, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland plc; Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft; Citigroup Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited; and R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd and Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd. On 29 October 2013, the Commission adopted a statement of objections, with reference C(2013)7395, addressed to these undertakings.

(9)

On 29 October 2013, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against ICAP plc, ICAP Management Services Ltd and ICAP New Zealand Limited.

(10)

On 31 October 2013, a settlement meeting with ICAP took place. On 12 November 2013, ICAP informed the Commission that it wished to discontinue the settlement discussions.

(11)

On 4 December 2013 the Commission adopted a prohibition and fining Decision, with reference C(2013) 8602/7 (‘Settlement Decision’) addressed to the undertakings identified in recital 8.

(12)

On 6 June 2014 the Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to ICAP plc, ICAP Management Services Ltd and ICAP New Zealand Limited, with reference C(2014) 3768 final. ICAP made known to the Commission its views on the objections raised against it in writing on 14 August 2014 and orally during a hearing that took place on 12 September 2014.

(13)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 30 January 2015 and the Commission adopted the Decision on 4 February 2015.

(14)

In this case, the Commission has identified the following six bilateral infringements (4) and the duration of the undertaking’s involvement in each of the infringements is as follows:

(15)

The parties (banks) to the respective infringements engaged in the following anticompetitive practices:

(16)

[non-addressee] facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2008-2009 infringement in the period from 29 June 2009 until 10 August 2009, whereby at the request of [non-addressee], [non-addressee] promised to, and at least on a few occasions did, contact a number of JPY LIBOR panel banks that did not participate in the infringement, with the aim of influencing their JPY LIBOR submissions. [non-addressee] was not aware of this circumstance.

(17)

ICAP facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2007 infringement in the period from 14 August 2007 until 1 November 2007, whereby at the request of [non-addressee], ICAP aimed to influence certain JPY LIBOR panel banks that did not participate in the infringement to submit JPY LIBOR rates in line with the requests from [non-addressee] by (i) disseminating misleading information to them via the so-called ‘Run Thrus’; and/or (ii) directly contacting them. [non-addressee] was not aware of this circumstance.

(18)

ICAP facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2008 infringement in the period from 28 August 2008 until 3 November 2008, whereby at the request of [non-addressee], ICAP aimed to influence certain JPY LIBOR panel banks that did not participate in the infringement to submit JPY LIBOR rates in line with the requests from [non-addressee] by (i) disseminating misleading information to them via the so-called ‘Run Thrus’; and/or (ii) directly contacting them. [non-addressee] was not aware of this circumstance.

(19)

ICAP facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2008-2009 infringement in the period from 22 May 2009 until 10 August 2009, whereby at the request of [non-addressee], ICAP aimed to influence certain JPY LIBOR panel banks that did not participate in the infringement to submit JPY LIBOR rates in line with the requests from [non-addressee] by (i) disseminating misleading information to them via the so-called ‘Run Thrus’; and/or (ii) directly contacting them. [non-addressee] was not aware of this circumstance.

(20)

ICAP facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2010 infringement in the period from 3 March 2010 until 22 June 2010 by serving as a communications channel between a trader of [non-addressee] and a trader of [non-addressee], thus enabling the anticompetitive practices between them.

(21)

ICAP facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2010 infringement in the period from 7 April 2010 until 7 June 2010, whereby at the request of [non-addressee], ICAP aimed to influence certain JPY LIBOR panel banks that did not participate in the infringement to submit JPY LIBOR rates in line with the requests from [non-addressee] by (i) disseminating misleading information to them via the so-called ‘Run Thrus’; and/or (ii) directly contacting them. [non-addressee] was not aware of this circumstance.

(22)

ICAP facilitated the [non-addressee]/[non-addressee] 2010 infringement with respect to YIRDs referenced to the JPY LIBOR (5) in the period from 28 April 2010 until 2 June 2010, whereby at the request of [non-addressee], ICAP aimed to influence certain JPY LIBOR panel banks that did not participate in the infringement to submit JPY LIBOR rates in line with the requests from [non-addressee] by (i) disseminating misleading information to them via the so-called ‘Run Thrus’; and/or (ii) directly contacting them. [non-addressee] was not aware of this circumstance.

(23)

The geographic scope of each of the six infringements and for all the respective participants therein covered the entire EEA.

(24)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (6). The Commission imposes fines on the undertakings to which this Decision is addressed.

(25)

The Guidelines on fines provide only limited guidance on the calculation of the fines which can be imposed on facilitators like ICAP, which was not directly active on the sector covered by the cartel, i.e. interest rate derivatives, for the purposes of the infringements. As a result, ICAP’s basic amount for each of the infringements is determined in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the case-law and point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on fines, reflecting the gravity, duration and nature of its involvement, as well as the need to ensure that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect.

(26)

In assessing the gravity of the infringements, the Commission takes into account of the fact that each of the infringements is, by its very nature, among the most harmful restrictions of competition, the fact that each of the infringements covered the entire EEA and the fact that the collusive activities related to financial benchmarks.

(27)

In calculating the fines to be imposed on the addressees of this Decision, the Commission also takes into consideration the duration of ICAP’s participation in each of the six infringements.

(28)

With respect to each of the infringements, the Commission takes into account that ICAP participated in the infringements as a facilitator, which is a role that is not of the same nature as that of the banks participating in the relevant infringements. As such, in determining ICAP’s basic amount for each infringement, the Commission applies an appropriate reduction factor.

(29)

With respect to the addressees of the present Decision, there are no aggravating or attenuating circumstances in relation to any of the infringements.

(30)

Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 provides that the fine imposed for each infringement shall not exceed 10 % of ICAP’s total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of the Commission decision.

(31)

In this case, none of the fines exceed 10 % of ICAP’s total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of this Decision.

(32)

The following fines are imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/15

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/16

1.

On 8 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

Cambourne Life Investment Pte. Ltd (‘Cambourne’) and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (‘MassMutual’) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Rothesay HoldCo UK Ltd (United Kingdom (‘Rothesay’), whereby the Blackstone Group LP (‘Blackstone’) is already a controlling shareholder. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Blackstone: asset management,

—   for Cambourne: a company ultimately controlled by GIC Pte. Ltd, a global investment management company.

—   for MassMutual: life insurance, retirement and investment products, primarily active in the United States,

—   for Rothesay: insurance, focussed primarily on defined benefit pension risk transfers within the United Kingdom. Rothesay offers a range of products, including (i) insurance buy-out solutions, (ii) insurance buy-in solutions, and (iii) longevity swaps.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8630 — Blackstone/MassMutual/Cambourne/Rothesay

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/18

1.

On 7 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Valeo Holding GmbH (Germany) controlled by Valeo S.A. (‘Valeo’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of FTE Group Holding GmbH (‘FTE’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 10 October 2016, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 29 November 2016.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Valeo: the design, manufacture and sale of automotive equipment, including in particular thermal systems, powertrain systems, comfort and driving assistance systems, and visibility systems;

—   for FTE: the design, manufacture and sale of (i) clutch actuation products; (ii) brake actuation products; (iii) electric transmission oil pumps and other components for gearboxes and powertrain based on electro-hydraulic technology. FTE is also active in the remanufacturing of brake calipers.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8102 — Valeo / FTE Group, to the following address:

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/19

1.

On 8 September 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

Shell Midstream acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over Crestwood Permian Basin. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8638 — Shell Midstream Partners/Crestwood Permian Basin Holdings/Crestwood Permian Basin

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/20

Consorzio di Tutela del Pane di Matera IGP (Consortium for the protection of Pane di Matera PGI)

Via De Amicis, 54

75100 Matera

ITALIA

—

☐

Name of product

—

☒

Product description

—

☐

Geographical area

—

☐

Proof of origin

—

☒

Production method

—

☐

Link

—

☐

Labelling

—

☒

Other [Packaging; Inspection body; Geographical area]

—

☒

Amendment to product specification of a registered PDO or PGI not to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI for which a Single Document (or equivalent) has not been published not to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

—

The following sentence in Article 2 of the current specification:

is replaced by the following Article 2 of the amended product specification:

It is specified that durum wheat flour and/or semolina may be used for the production of ‘Pane di Matera’. This specification improves the description of the raw material used to produce ‘Pane di Matera’. The use of semolina for bread making, is a widespread practice for bakery products especially in the southern regions of Italy, and also in the Province of Matera. Therefore, further to a request by producers, it is considered that there is no reason not to allow the use durum wheat semolina for the production of ‘Pane di Matera’ PGI.

Furthermore, the chemical parameters of the flours and semolina have been better defined and updated. In particular:

The updated chemical parameters of the flours and semolina proposed in the amendment are designed to adapt the product specification to the actual characteristics of the raw materials used to make ‘Pane di Matera’ PGI.

—

The following tables:

are amended as follows:

The amendment to the table setting out the composition of ‘Pane di Matera’ has become necessary due to ongoing variation in the characteristics of the raw ingredients available on the market, as noted by bakers. Without prejudice to the obligatory use of at least 20 % durum wheat flour and semolina from local landraces and varieties, producers are given the option of having higher levels of protein, carbohydrate, fat and ash. This is to enable them to make use of new varieties of durum wheat available on the market, as well as allowing them to extend the options for the remaining 80 % of flour and semolina used to produce ‘Pane di Matera’.

The range of values defined for the sensory descriptors of ‘Pane di Matera’ have been extended based on the bakers' experience of production. For greater accuracy, it was considered appropriate to include in the specifications the official methods for defining the sensory profile of ‘Pane di Matera’.

—

The following table has been deleted:

In addition to easing the burden of analyses and the subsequent financial costs to producers, removal of the table was necessary on account of the proposed amendments, and especially that of increasing the sizes. The values shown in the table do not take account of the amendments and are therefore inaccurate. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate to remove the table, leaving producers to define the shelf-life of ‘Pane di Matera’ in relation to its size, in accordance with the number of days stated at Article 6 of the specification.

The description of ‘Pane di Matera’ when released for consumption has been amended. The following paragraph of Article 7 of the specification, and corresponding point 3.2 of the single document:

‘“Pane di Matera” must have the following characteristics when released for consumption:

Moisture no more than 33 %’

is amended as follows:

‘“Pane di Matera” must have the following characteristics when released for consumption:

The moisture parameters are those laid down in the relevant legislation.

Specifically, the range of loaf sizes has been increased, from 1-2 kg to 500 g-10 kg, to meet the new needs of consumers and caterers. This amendment is intended to satisfy both the demands of small households, that require small loaves to avoid waste, and the demands of the catering sector that calls for large loaves that keep for longer and are better for slicing.

The parameter specifying moisture content of not more than 33 % has been deleted and reference made to the relevant legislation (Law No 580 of 4 July 1967, Article 16).

In addition, a requirement for the loaves to bear the trademark initials ‘MT’ has been added to the characteristics of the product in order to make it more easily recognisable. The initials ‘MT’ are impressed into the dough at the top of the loaf before baking.

—

In order to allow the use of other containers for the leavening of the dough that are more compatible with hygiene rules, the term ‘tall and narrow jute cylinder’ has been replaced by ‘graduated food container’.

—

The amount of water used in the mixture has been increased from 40 to 50 % of the weight of the dough as a result of the decrease in moisture content of the durum wheat flour and/or semolina.

—

The following paragraph has been deleted and replaced by a more clearly worded description that is easier for producers to follow:

Replaced by:

—

The minimum amount of salt to be used in the production process has been reduced from 2,5 to 2 kg, in line with changing dietary advice.

—

It was considered advisable to delete the reference to the use of cotton or wool cloths to cover the dough. This amendment is needed to allow producers to use cloths also made of other materials which are more versatile and more suitable from a hygiene/health point of view. The sentence:

has been amended as follows:

—

The weight range of the loaves has been increased to meet the needs both of families who prefer smaller loaves and the catering industry which prefers larger loaves. The sentence:

has been amended as follows:

—

It was considered advisable to reword the following sentence to allow the use of other tools and materials (containers and cloths) in the production process that producers may prefer to wooden boards, whether for reasons of complying with hygiene standards or for technical reasons. Containers made of wood or stainless steel and cloths of any material suitable for food use are now allowed. The sentence:

has therefore been amended as follows:

—

In order to make the product more recognisable, the stage of marking the loaves with the initials ‘MT’ has been included in the product specification with the following sentence:

—

The following sentence has been deleted: ‘After a final leavening period of 30 minutes, the loaves are baked in a wood-fired or gas oven’, as it is not very clear. The sentence in fact refers to the stage prior to marking. After being shaped, the loaves are not subject to any further leavening stages. The stage after marking is baking.

—

In order to extend the types of ovens that may be used to bake the bread, the references to ‘gas ovens’ have been replaced by ‘indirectly heated ovens’. This means that both gas ovens and other types of oven can be used by producers. In addition, baking times have been reviewed to take into account the different loaf sizes of the bread.

The text:

is amended as follows:

—

The reference to the pores of the crumb having a diameter of ‘from 2-3 mm to as much as 60 mm’ has been deleted. This information is totally irrelevant given that the size of the air bubbles created as the bread rises varies greatly. Therefore, the sentence:

has been amended as follows:

—

The shelf life of the bread has been adapted to the new loaf sizes introduced.

Specifically, the sentence:

has been amended as follows:

‘The shelf life of the bread thus obtained can be up to 7 days for the 1 kg loaves and up to 14 days for the 10 kg loaves.’ The shelf life of the intermediate loaf sizes is established by the baker respecting the abovementioned periods.

—

In order to allow the use of different materials for packaging, the reference to the bread being ‘packaged either in micro-perforated plastic, partly coloured and partly transparent to aid product visibility, or in windowed multilayered paper’

is amended as follows:

The details regarding the characteristics of micro-perforated plastic have been deleted to allow producers greater flexibility as to the presentation of the packaged product.

—

The wording ‘pane cotto in forno a legna’ (bread baked in a wood-fired oven) was already permitted by the product specification but the following sentence has been added to regulate its use:

—

It has been specified that for products intended for international markets, the wording ‘indicazione geografica protetta’ (protected geographical indication) may be used in the language of the country concerned. The phrase inserted is as follows:

—

Article 3 of the product specification has been amended to bring it into line with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012; the second paragraph containing references to packaging and labelling has been moved to Article 6 of the product specification.

As regards the geographical production area of Pane di Matera, no changes have been made to the version of the specification currently in force.

—

Cone-shaped or ‘tall’;

—

Loaves of between 500 g and 10 kg;

—

A crust at least 3 mm thick;

—

Pale yellow crumb with characteristic holes;

—

The initials ‘MT’, in printed capitals, impressed into the top of the loaf before baking.

15.9.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/30

Associazione Produttori Marroni della Marca Trevigiana

Piazza Case Rosse 14

31040 Onigo di Pederobba (TV)

ITALIA

—

☒

Description of product

—

☐

Proof of origin

—

☐

Method of production

—

☐

Link

—

☒

Labelling

—

☒

Other [packaging]

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires no amendment to the published single document.

—

☒

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires an amendment to the published single document.

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published.

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered TSG to be qualified as minor in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

1.

‘Fruit: generally ovoid in shape, with apex protruding only slightly, with one largely flat side and the other markedly convex. Number of fruit per kilogram: 90 or fewer.’ […]

‘The following are eligible for the PGI: fruit belonging to the “Extra” category (fruit size greater than 3 cm — maximum 4 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 3 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp) and category I (fruit size between 2,8 cm and 3 cm — maximum 6 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 5 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp).’

and of point 3.2 of the Single Document:

2.

‘fruit: ovoid in shape, with apex protruding only slightly, with one largely flat side and the other markedly convex. Number of fruit per kilogram: 90 or fewer.’ […]

‘The following are eligible for the PGI: fruit belonging to the “Extra” category (fruit size greater than 3 cm — maximum 4 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 3 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp) and category I (fruit size between 2,8 cm and 3 cm — maximum 6 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 5 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp).’

are amended as follows:

‘Fruit: generally ovoid in shape, with apex protruding only slightly, with one largely flat side and the other markedly convex. Number of fruit per kilogram: 120 or fewer.’ […]

‘The following are eligible for the PGI: fruit belonging to the “Extra” category (fruit size greater than 3 cm — maximum 4 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 3 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp), category I (fruit size between 2,8 cm and 3 cm — maximum 6 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 5 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp), and category II (fruit size between 2,6 and 2,8 cm — maximum 6 % by weight of fruit with endocarp affected by insects; maximum 5 % by weight of fruit with damage to the pericarp).’

Grounds:

The amendments in points 1 and 2 are due to the fruit having become smaller, which means that there is a larger number of fruit in 1 kg of product. Indeed, the particularly dry summers of recent years have resulted in smaller fruit, making it necessary to also market chestnuts of smaller sizes under the protected geographical indication.

Moreover, an inconsistency between the description of the shape of the fruit in the Single Document and that in the technical specification has been corrected. This being a natural product, it is not possible to guarantee absolute regularity in terms of shape, which is why the wording ‘Fruit: generally ovoid in shape’, already contained in the product specification, has been taken over into the Single Document.

As the other characteristics set out in Article 2 and in point 3.2 of the Single Document are not affected either by the shape or by the size of the fruit, its specific quality characteristics remain unchanged. It is therefore considered that the amendment can be classified as ‘minor’ under points (a)-(e) of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

3.

‘The product must be packaged in net bags intended for food use, the tops of which must be heat sealed or sewn shut.’

is amended as follows:

‘The product must be packaged in net bags intended for food use or in containers suited for food use of various sizes and material. All types of packaging are sealed in such a way that the fruit cannot be removed without breaking the seal.’

4.

‘The product is marketed in net bags for food use, in packages weighing 1 kg, 2 kg, 3 kg (heat sealed), 5 kg or 10 kg (sewn shut).’

is amended as follows:

‘The packages may weigh 0,5 kg, 1 kg, 2 kg, 3 kg, 5 kg, 10 kg or 25 kg.’

Grounds:

Amendments 3 and 4 reflect the need not to limit the type of packaging, given that the availability of packaging material may vary (heat-sealing systems are no longer available on the Italian market, for example) and that other types of packaging material could become an option in future, for instance material that is more environmentally-friendly. As the amendment affects only the packaging and weight of the product, it is considered that it can be classified as ‘minor’ under points (a)-(e) of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

5.

The point:

is amended as follows:

A reference to category II is inserted. As this amendment is designed to ensure consistency with the amendments in points 1 and 2 and affects only the labelling of the product, it is considered that it can be classified as ‘minor’ under points (a)-(e) of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.