14.11.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/5

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail

(2017/C 383/07)

(1)

The draft decision relates to the removal by AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai (‘LG’) of a 19-kilometre stretch of railway track running from Mažeikiai (Lithuania) to the border with Latvia (the ‘Track’). According to the draft decision, this constitutes an infringement of Article 102 TFEU in that it raised market entry barriers without objective justification, weakening (potential) competition in the market for the provision of rail transport services for oil products between a refinery in Bugeniai (Lithuania) (the ‘Refinery’) and the seaports of Klaipėda (Lithuania), Riga (Latvia) and Ventspils (Latvia).

(2)

The Commission’s investigation followed a complaint by the Refinery’s owner, AB ORLEN Lietuva (‘OL’). Until shortly before its removal, the Track had been used as part of the main route for the transportation of oil products from the Refinery to or through Latvia. After the removal of the Track, all products from the Refinery bound by rail for Latvia had to be transported on a different route, via a more distant border crossing.

(3)	Between 8 and 10 March 2011, the Commission carried out inspections at LG and at another undertaking.

(4)	On 6 March 2013, the Commission initiated proceedings for the purposes of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) in respect of LG.

(5)

On 5 January 2015, the Commission addressed a statement of objections to LG (the ‘SO’). In essence, the Commission’s preliminary assessment in the SO was that LG, by dismantling the Track without objective necessity, infringed Article 102 TFEU, raising barriers-to-entry in the downstream market for the railway transportation of oil products between the Refinery and the seaports of Klaipėda, Riga and Ventspils.

(6)	On 9 January 2015, LG was given access-to-file by means of a CD-ROM.

(7)

On 4 February 2015, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 773/2004, OL received a non-confidential version of the SO. After OL requested access to some of the information that was redacted in that version (4), DG Competition provided OL with a less-redacted version of the SO on 25 February 2015. OL did not seek further access to the SO text, but in its written comments on the SO, OL criticised the extent of redactions in this second ‘non-confidential’ version as being unjustified. Contrary to OL’s suggestions however, the extent of redactions in that version did not undermine the exercise of OL’s right, as a complainant, to be closely associated with proceedings.

(8)	On 8 April 2015, LG responded to the SO and to OL’s comments on the SO.

(9)	LG and OL took part in an oral hearing on 27 May 2015.

(10)

In the reply to the SO and during the oral hearing, LG claimed that the SO failed to ‘identify a proper theory of harm’ and thus to review LG’s conduct under sufficiently specify precise legal criteria that describe the nature of the allegedly abusive conduct and point to relevant case law. Rather, the SO combined, according to LG, the Commission’s ‘own doubts … with a superficial appreciation of LG’s statements to reach a vague conclusion that the removal of the Track was not objectively justified’.

(11)

These criticisms essentially raise issues of substance rather than of procedural fairness. The effective exercise of LG’s rights of defence, in particular its right to be heard, was not unlawfully restricted by the framing or content of the SO. Accordingly, these criticisms are unconvincing from a due-process perspective.

(12)

On 23 October 2015, DG Competition sent LG a ‘letter of facts’, enclosing additional evidence on which reliance by the Commission was envisaged. In its written response of 2 December 2015, LG claimed in substance, among other things, that the Commission should have indicated more precisely why, and the extent to which, it considered given pieces of evidence to corroborate arguments put forward in the SO and/or to undermine LG’s arguments made in response to the SO.

(13)

The letter of facts presents in sufficiently clear and precise terms (often including specific references to the SO) the additional evidence concerned, as well the inferences that might be drawn from the individual pieces of this evidence. These inferences were provisional since LG was being given the opportunity to comment on them. The detail in which they were presented was sufficient for LG to identify, where necessary, those of its arguments to which given possible inferences related. I thus consider LG’s procedural criticisms of the letter of facts to be unwarranted.

(14)	In accordance with Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which LG has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does.

(15)	Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 29 September 2017.

Joos STRAGIER

(1) Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18) (‘Regulation No 773/2004’).

(4) This request was addressed to me, but was transferred to DG Competition in view of the requirements of Article 3(7) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

14.11.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/7

Summary of Commission Decision

of 2 October 2017

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail)

(notified under document number C(2017) 6544)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2017/C 383/08)

On 2 October 2017, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. The non-confidential version of the decision will be published in English on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html

1. Introduction

The Commission found that the state-owned Lithuanian rail company, AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai (‘LG’), abused its dominant position as the rail infrastructure manager in Lithuania by removing a track leading from Lithuania to the border with Latvia thus preventing a competing rail undertaking from Latvia to enter the Lithuanian market. The Commission imposed a fine on LG and ordered it to bring the infringement to an end.

2. Procedure

On 14 July 2010, the Commission received a complaint under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 lodged by AB ORLEN Lietuva (‘OL’) against LG.

Between 8 and 10 March 2011, the Commission carried out inspections under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 at the premises of LG.

On 6 March 2013, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings against LG within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2) and Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

On 5 January 2015, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections against LG. The oral hearing took place on 27 May 2015.

On 23 October 2015 the Commission sent a Letter of Facts to LG to which it responded on 2 December 2015.

3. Facts

LG has a legal monopoly on the management of rail infrastructure in Lithuania.

The complainant, OL, owns a refinery in Lithuania near the border with Latvia. OL is dependent on rail for the transportation of its products from the refinery. The larger part of its production is transported to the Lithuanian seaport of Klaipeda for seaborne export. OL is an important customer of LG.

In 2008 OL was examining the possibility of switching to the Latvian seaports using the services of the Latvian rail company (‘LDZ’). For that purpose OL’s cargo would have been transported to Latvia on a 34 kilometre route from the refinery to the border. In September 2008 LG suspended traffic on a 19 kilometre section of the route (‘Track’) due to an alleged deformation on 40 metres (‘Deformation’). In October 2008 LG dismantled entirely the 19 kilometres of the Track which was not rebuilt since.

4. Legal assessment

10.

The Commission considered that by removing the Track entirely LG has had recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition, where: LG was aware of OL’s plans to switch to the Latvian seaports using LDZ’s services; the removal of the Track by LG was done in great haste without securing the necessary funds and without taking any of the normal preparatory steps for its reconstruction; the removal of the Track was contrary to standard practice; LG took steps to convince the Lithuanian government not to rebuild the Track.

11.

The Commission found that the Track allowed for the shortest and cheapest route from the refinery to a seaport. Because of its proximity to Latvia and to LDZ’s logistical base, this route also presented a very favourable option for LDZ to enter the Lithuanian market.

12.

The removal of the Track prejudiced LDZ’s competitive position vis-à-vis LG and made its entry to the Lithuanian market significantly more difficult. After the removal of the track, rail transport from the refinery to a seaport (either in Lithuania or Latvia) must pass through much longer routes in the territory of Lithuania. This would necessitate LDZ to operate far from its logistical base in Latvia and make it dependent on the infrastructure services of its competitor, LG. In these circumstances LDZ faces significant commercial risks which it is less likely to take.

13.

LG justified its actions by arguing that after the Deformation occurred, the renovation of the entire Track was necessary before traffic could have been resumed. According to LG the renovation required first removing the track entirely. The Commission considered however that these explanations were inconsistent with each other, at times simply contradicting one another and unconvincing. The Commission therefore considered that LG failed to show objective justification for the removal of the Track.

5. Fines

14.

In light of the gravity and duration of this ongoing infringement, the Commission imposed on LG a fine of EUR 27 873 000.

6. Remedies

15.

The Commission considered that there may be several possible structural or behavioural remedies that would either restore the competitive situation that existed before the removal of the track or eliminate the disadvantages facing potential competitors on the alternative routes to the seaports.

16.

The Commission ordered LG to bring the infringement to an end and to submit to it within three months from the date of notification of the decision a proposal for measures to that effect.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1). With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 101 and 102, respectively, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

14.11.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/12

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2017/C 383/11)

This publication confers the right to oppose the application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION FOR A PROTECTED DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN OR PROTECTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION

Application for approval of amendments in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

‘MOULES DE BOUCHOT DE LA BAIE DU MONT-SAINT-MICHEL’

EU No: PDO-FR-0547-AM01 — 5.4.2017

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

1. Applicant group and legitimate interest

Comité AOP ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’

Le Port Est

35960 Le Vivier-sur-Mer

FRANCE

Tel. +33 299163840

Email: contact@moules-aop.com

The group is composed of concessionaires, operators and packagers of ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’. It therefore has a legitimate right to propose the amendments.

2. Member State or Third Country

France

3. Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment(s)

—	☐	Product name
—	☐	Description of product
—	☒	Geographical area
—	☒	Proof of origin
—	☒	Method of production
—	☐	Link
—	☒	Labelling
—	☒	Other: Updating of the contact details, types of operators, inspections.

4. Type of amendment(s)

—	☒	Amendments to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI not to be qualified as minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012
—	☐	Amendments to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI for which a Single Document (or equivalent) has not been published and which cannot be qualified as minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

5. Amendment(s)

Heading ‘Geographical area’

—

The sentence ‘All of the production steps of “Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel”, from the farming of the mussels to their packaging, takes place in the geographical area’ has been added.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the steps that must take place in the geographical area of the PDO.

—

Extension of the geographical area to cadastral sections AM and ZC of the municipality of Dol-de-Bretagne. That part of the municipality meets the demarcation criteria for the area currently registered and forms a seamless whole with the current geographical area. This request to extend the geographical area is justified by the difficulty of building in the municipalities of the geographical area owing to the lack of building land. It is, however, essential to have processing and packaging facilities close to the breeding place, so that the mussels can be processed quickly.

—	Addition of the municipality of Hirel to the list of municipalities in the geographical area. The purpose of this amendment is to correct an error. That municipality is included in the Single Document but was left out of the specification.

Heading ‘Proof of origin’

—

As regards the rules on the identification declaration of operators authorised to produce under the designation of origin, the clarifications ‘by registered letter with advice of delivery or delivered personally against a receipt’ and ‘in accordance with a model validated by the Director of the National Institute for Origin and Quality (INAO)’ have been deleted.

These procedural aspects concern the inspection plan related to the specification, not the PDO specification itself.

—

As regards the identification declarations of the different operators, the registered specification states that the references of the processing and packaging facilities must be indicated ‘by specifying, where appropriate, which ones are used to process mussels of other origin’. It is proposed to delete the references to mussels of other origin.

The purpose of the declaration is to describe the sustainable means of production available to the operator. However, the way the facilities are used may change over time. Therefore that detail is not needed in the identification declaration and might require the declarations to be amended numerous times.

The traceability of mussels with the PDO and mussels ineligible for the PDO is guaranteed in any case.

—

The following has been provided for regarding the registers which operators must fill in: ‘There is a storage register that includes, in particular, for each stock and basin, a layout plan for the containers or tubs (baskets) with, for each of them, the original lines of bouchots, the date of entry and of exit and the destination of the mussels.’ This paragraph has been amended as follows ‘The storage register specifies, in particular, for each stock and basin:

—	the original lines of bouchots,

—	the date of entry, and

—	the date of exit.’

Several years of experience with this PDO have shown that the current wording of the specification is inappropriate, because the layout plan for the containers and hampers is not feasible for daily use and the destination of the mussels is not known at the time of storage. The destination and traceability are confirmed at the dispatching stage.

—

As regards mussels ready for packaging, the provision on the transfer form in the specification has been supplemented by adding ‘the acronym “Moules BMSM PDO” (“Moules BMSM PDO”)’.

It was decided to add this acronym rather than the full name in order to enable rapid reading of the form and improve the traceability of the mussels within the geographical area. The acronym may be used for this purpose only in order to avoid any ambiguity in the labelling of the products offered for sale.

—

In addition, the paragraph ‘The transfer form is affixed to the container with a band of a colour different from those used for marketing. It features the abbreviation “PDO” and the references of the undertaking that washed and graded the mussels according to size.’ has been replaced as follows: ‘The transfer form accompanies the container, on which is affixed a band of a colour different from those used for marketing. The band features the abbreviation “PDO” and a serial number referenced by the group.’

On the band, the references of the undertaking that washed and graded the mussels according to size have been replaced with a serial number referenced by the group, which itself ensures traceability between the numbers on the band and the operators. This amendment allows better monitoring over time.

—

As regards the labelling of the sales units, the sentence ‘In addition, all packaging is identified by a marking system approved by the National Institute for Origin and Quality and distributed by the group.’ has been replaced by ‘This labelling is affixed immediately after packaging, in a way that renders it inseparable from the product.’

Considering the diverse types of packaging, the group has opted for labelling that is inseparable from the product, as chosen by the operator, instead of a marking system. The labelling must contain the mandatory information, which remains unchanged.

—

The sentence ‘The trays are identified by the name of the designation of origin inscribed on the container.’ has been replaced by ‘This labelling is affixed immediately after packaging, in a way that renders it inseparable from the product.’

New types of packaging are used nowadays. The requirement concerning the trays may be difficult to fulfil, since it would entail managing stocks of packaging as well as additional costs. The PDO is identified with the help of an inseparable label affixed immediately after packaging, which meets the traceability objective while offering some flexibility in the choice of containers.

The requirement concerning bags ‘identified by the name of the designation of origin pre-printed on the container’ has likewise been removed. Traceability is maintained by affixing a band with a serial number referenced by the group, as for the transport of mussels ready for packaging.

—	In addition, drafting amendments have been made to improve readability and clarity. Redundancies with general regulations have likewise been deleted.

Heading ‘Method of production’

—

As regards the method for collecting the mussels, it has been added that they are ‘collected in their natural environment’. This practice was an implicit part of the production of mussels with the PDO. This clarification makes the specification consistent with the one for the ‘Moules de Bouchot’ TSG.

—

As regards the seeding of the bouchots, the sentences ‘The spat may remain on the frames until not later than 31 October of the year of the repatriation of the larvae’ and ‘All mussels and ropes must be removed from the spat frames by 31 October at the latest.’ have been removed.

Under the specification, only stakes seeded not later than 31 October are considered eligible for the designation. Therefore that provision is not relevant to the production of mussels for the PDO. Besides, it is very likely that the ropes left on the frames would be destroyed during autumn and winter storms.

—

The phrase ‘a gap of at least 30 cm is left between the ground and the bottom of the ropes or net coils on the stakes.’ has been replaced by ‘a minimum gap is left between the ground and the bottom of the ropes or net coils on the stakes to prevent the mussels from being in contact with the ground.’

The absence of contact with the ground is an essential condition for farming on bouchots. Contact with the ground would affect the taste of the mussels. Moreover, a minimum gap between the ground and the bottom of the ropes is required for using the picker, a tool for harvesting the mussels, and for ensuring that all mussels are detached from the bouchots. If mussels remained after the harvest, they might serve as sources for the spread of certain mussel parasites. Producers take account of these technical constraints and always follow the minimum gap rule. However, the distance between the bottom of the ropes or the net coils and the ground may vary after seeding owing to the movement of the sand.

—

The reference to national regulations for setting the seeding rate of the bouchots — ‘In accordance with the amended Decree of 22 March 1983 establishing the authorisation scheme for marine fish farms, the rate set for the designation’ — has been removed, since the text in question has been repealed.

—

The maximum seeding rate of the bouchots, set in the specification in force according to the sectors where the bouchot stakes have been planted in the bay, has been amended as follows:

The paragraph:

‘—	65 % per line of 100 linear metres in the eastern part of the canal (“bief”) of Vivier-sur-Mer in Cherrueix and the north-western and the north-eastern part of the Hermelles biotherm (“banc”),

—	55 % per line of 100 linear metres in the rest of the defined farming area’,

has been replaced as follows:

‘—	65 % per line of 100 linear metres in the eastern part of the canal (“bief”) of Vivier-sur-Mer in Cherrueix, the north-western part of the Hermelles biotherm (“banc”) and the 99 southernmost lines of the north-eastern part of the Hermelles biotherm,

—	55 % per line of 100 linear metres in the rest of the farming area.’.

The amendment removes ambiguity, as the definition of these sectors had been included in an incomplete manner that gave the impression that the 65 % rate was applied to the entire area (where bouchot stakes have been planted) in the north-eastern part of the Hermelles biotherm, whereas that is the case only for the southernmost section of that part.

—

As regards the length of the stakes, the words ‘of a maximum height of 5,5 metres’ have been deleted.

The length of the stakes had been set when applying to register the PDO, on the basis of the practices observed. However, there is no technical justification for limiting the length of the stakes. Besides, longer stakes have an advantage, since they can be driven deeper into the ground, thus making the bouchots more resistant to sea currents, which might uproot the stakes. The seeding height of the stakes is limited to 3,5 metres, and this has not been changed.

—

The words ‘on bouchots’ have been added to the sentence ‘After being farmed on bouchots for more than 24 months, the mussels are no longer eligible for the designation of origin “Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont Saint-Michel”’.

The clarification has been made for inspection purposes, in order to clearly define the reference period after which the mussels may no longer be marketed under the PDO. The period of breeding on spat frames is not taken into account.

—

The qualifier ‘average’ has been added to the phrase ‘An average maximum annual yield of 60 kg of marketed mussels per stake has been set for all of the concessions […]’.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the subject of the inspection. The maximum annual yield is checked using the average figure for the concession, not for each stake.

—

As regards the harvesting period, the sentence ‘The harvesting period for the mussels has been set to between 15 June and 15 February of the year following the seeding of the bouchots.’ has been replaced with ‘The harvesting period for the mussels has been set to between 15 June of the year following the seeding of the bouchots and the following 15 February.’

This amendment corrects a drafting error. Indeed, the stakes are seeded in the first year (N) and not later than 31 October. Harvesting starts the following year (N+1), as from 15 June at the earliest, and continues until 15 February of the year after that, i.e. N+2.

Therefore the words ‘of the year following the seeding’ refer to 15 June and not to 15 February as indicated by the version in force.

—

The sentence ‘Mussels bred for a minimum period of 18 months may be harvested between 15 June and 31 July of the year following the seeding of the bouchots.’ has been amended as follows: ‘Mussels bred on bouchots for a period of 19,5 to 24 months may be harvested between 15 June and 31 July.’

The amended paragraph concerns mussels generally qualified with the words ‘of two years’ and specifies that they must be harvested at the beginning of the season. The wording in the specification in force is incorrect in that it is not possible for mussels on bouchots seeded in a given year (N) to have been cultivated on bouchots for 18 months the following year (N+1), at the beginning of the harvesting season.

The period of cultivation of these mussels has been recalculated on the basis of the possible seeding dates:

—	Seeding not later than on 31 October of year N, i.e. a minimum of 19,5 months on 15 June of year N+2;

—	Mussels older than 24 months may not be marketed under the PDO.

—	The procedure for opening and closing the harvest has been detailed in two separate paragraphs in order to make the procedure easier to understand and apply.

—

As regards the possibility of putting the mussels in reserve after harvesting, the registered specification provides for putting them in reserve ‘using a sealed receptacle’. The qualifier ‘sealed’ has been deleted. The receptacle does not need to be sealed when the mussels are placed into basins. Vented containers allow the water to circulate. The mussels cannot leave the receptacles.

The recipients used for mussels put in reserve in concessions at sea are not sealed either but must be placed in a closed facility to prevent the mussels from being carried away by the sea current.

—

The sentence ‘The minimum space between the bars in the grids used for sifting the mussels has been set at 12 mm.’ has been replaced with ‘A grid with a minimum spacing of 12 mm is used to sift the mussels.’

This amendment has been made to clarify that sifting is a mandatory operation. As techniques are developing, the reference to ‘bars in the grids’ has been removed so as to allow producers to use all types of sifting equipment. This amendment only concerns the method; the target value for the grid remains at 12 mm. Besides, the term ‘sifted’, which describes the mussels in the phrase ‘the mussels are stripped from the stakes, washed, sifted and sorted’, has been added to specify that that operation is mandatory.

—

As regards the packaging phase, the sentence ‘A maximum of 20 % of the batches of mussels ready to be packaged must consist of mussels under 4 cm’ has been replaced by ‘A maximum of 20 % by weight of the batches of mussels ready to be packaged may consist of mussels under 4 cm long’. The word ‘must’ has been replaced by ‘may’, as it is a tolerance range, not an obligation. In order to clarify the inspection method, it has been specified that the proportion of mussels under 4 cm long is expressed in weight.

—

The paragraph ‘In exceptional circumstances, the fullness ratio for mussels ready for packaging may be adjusted for a particular harvest by an interministerial order, issued on a proposal from the appropriate national committee of the INAO. However, these values may under no circumstances be reduced by more than 5 % of the minimum rate set in point 2 “Description of product”.’

has been replaced as follows:

‘If, under the regulations on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the group applies for a temporary change of the production conditions owing to exceptional circumstances, the flesh-to-shell ratio may not be set at below 114, which constitutes a 5 % reduction, in order to preserve the specificity of the mussels entitled to the designation of origin.’

That paragraph has been updated in light of the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and its implementing regulations. The group wishes to keep a minimum value for the flesh-to-shell ratio. After all, it is one of the criteria behind the specificity of the PDO ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ and contributes to its reputation. The group considers that, even in exceptional circumstances, it should not be possible to market under the PDO mussels that are unable to attain the index of 114.

—

The qualifier ‘final’ has been added to the sentence ‘The final packaging and the marketing of the mussels takes place in containers with a maximum capacity of 15 kg.’ The aim of that amendment is to specify that the maximum capacity of 15 kg does not apply to containers used for transporting in the geographical area mussels ready to be packed, but only to the final packaging.

—	The sentence ‘Final packaging may take place in bags of 2 to 15 kg or trays of 0,5 to 7 kg.’ has been removed. That phrase presents the types of containers that may be used but does not lay down an obligation.

—	In addition, drafting amendments have been made to improve readability and clarity. Redundancies with general regulations and descriptive information irrelevant to the description of the product have been deleted.

Heading ‘Labelling’

—

The provision on the reference to the name of the designation has been amended in order to require the same font for the designation as a whole and a size larger than for the other information on the labelling. The group wishes to give more prominence to the name of the designation on the labelling.

—

Deletion of the phrase ‘until Community registration, the controlled designation of origin logo must be affixed near the name of the designation, with no text in between’. The rule in that transitional provision has become superfluous, since ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ was registered as a PDO in June 2011.

—

As regards the information on each individual pack, addition of ‘the weight of the packaged product; the name of the operator; the references of the packaging centre; the date of packaging; the serial number of the packaging.’

That amendment reiterates the requirements in the section ‘Proof of origin’ and is intended to detail the information that must feature on the labelling.

—

The requirement to include the name of the designation of origin has been removed for ‘accompanying documents’.

In line with the amendment of the heading ‘Proof of origin’ whereby the use of the acronym ‘Moules BMSM AOP’ (‘Moules BMSM PDO’) is authorised in the documents accompanying the mussels, the requirement to refer to the name in full has been removed.

—

In order to render communication concerning the PDO ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ more consistent, it has been added that ‘Communication materials must feature the name of the designation together with the reference “protected designation of origin” or “PDO” and the European Union PDO symbol.’

Heading ‘Other’

—	‘Updating details’: The contact details of the responsible State department and of the group have been updated. The name of the group was changed after the registration of the PDO and it has been updated.

—

‘Types of operators’: In order to avoid any ambiguity and use the vocabulary of professional mussel breeders, the manner of referring to the different types of operators defined in the section ‘Evidence that the product originates from the defined geographical area’ has been amended: The terms ‘producer’ and ‘dispatch centre’ have been replaced, respectively, by ‘operator’ and ‘packaging centre’.

—	‘Inspection’: The contact details of the inspection body have been replaced by those of the competent inspection authority. This amendment aims to prevent amendments being made to the specification in the event that the inspection body changes.

—	The table of the main items to be checked has been updated to take into account the amendments set out above.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘MOULES DE BOUCHOT DE LA BAIE DU MONT-SAINT-MICHEL’

EU No: PDO-FR-0547-AM01 — 5.4.2017

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

1. Name(s)

‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’

2. Member State or Third Country

France

3. Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1. Type of product

Class 1.7. Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

3.2. Description of the product to which the name in (1) applies

‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ are live bouchot mussels primarily from the species Mytilus edulis (less than 5 % are Mytilus galloprovincialis mussels or galloprovincialis-edulis hybrids). They are characterised by a smooth, dark shell that is regular in shape and by yellow to orange flesh free from crabs and grains of sand. The texture of the flesh is smooth and tender and the predominant flavour is sweet.

They have an average length greater than or equal to 4 cm, a carbohydrate content greater than 4 % of the cooked flesh and a minimum flesh-to-shell ratio of 120 on the Lawrence and Scott index.

3.3. Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

—

3.4. Specific steps in production that must take place in the defined geographical area

The production and processing of ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ are carried out in the geographical area.

3.5. Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

Packaging takes place in the geographical area. The packaging of the mussels is an important operation that may harm the quality, authenticity and, consequently, the reputation of the designation if the above requirements are not met.

The perishable nature of the mussels means that the mussels must be handled swiftly after cultivation and pass through rapid marketing channels. As not more than 18 hours may elapse after the washing and sifting of the mussels, packaging them in the defined area makes it possible to preserve the qualities and characteristics of the product.

The mussels are dispatched and marketed in packaging with a maximum capacity of 15 kg.

3.6. Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

The following information is indicated on each individual pack:

—	the name of the protected designation of origin ‘Moules de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’, written in identical characters larger than the largest characters that appear on the labelling,

—	the words ‘appellation d’origine protégée’ (‘protected designation of origin’),

—	the European Union PDO logo immediately before or after the name of the designation, with no text in between,

—	the weight of the packaged product,

—	the name of the producer,

—	the references of the packaging centre,

—	the date of packaging, and

—	the serial number of the packaging.

4. Concise definition of the geographical area

The geographical area extends from the part of the foreshore of the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel located to the south of the line between the church tower of Carolles and the Pointe de la Chaîne up to the west of the boundary between the departments Ille and Vilaine/Manche, and includes the municipalities of Cancale, Cherrueix, Le Vivier-sur-Mer, Mont-Dol, Hirel, Saint-Benoît-des-Ondes, Saint-Méloir-des-Ondes and Dol-de-Bretagne (cadastral sections AM and ZC only).

5. Link with the geographical area

Specificity of the geographical area

The municipalities covered by the designation of origin ‘Moules de bouchots de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ are located on the coast of the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel in the crook of the Norman-Breton Gulf.

The Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, characterised by its vast foreshore with a very slight slope and by the largest tidal ranges of any French coast, presents a mosaic of ecosystems (polders, saltwater marshes, mud flats, estuaries, etc.) characterised by the interaction between terrestrial and marine environments and the transition between land and sea.

The bodies of water that cover this great expanse of shallow water become much warmer from spring and present considerable turbidity due to the presence of fine or fine to medium sands. Once they enter the bay, they move, besides the oscillations due to the range of tides and the wind, very slowly.

The Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel has the further specificity of not having significant endemic mytilidae populations. Mytilus galloprovincialis has only a marginal presence and Mytilus edulis is not able to reproduce.

It is these exceptional natural conditions that led a number of commercial fishermen from Charente to introduce mussel farming on bouchot stakes at the end of the 1950s. These producers, aware of the risks that overproduction posed to the area’s environment and to the product, supported strict regulation of the planting of bouchots. Lastly, the mussel farmers put in place a procedure for opening and closing the harvest in light of analytical and organoleptic tests in order to avoid premature harvests when the mussels have not yet reached a sufficient size.

Specificity of the product

The ‘Moule de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ is a mussel of the species Mytilus edulis bred on bouchots and clearly distinguished from mussels from the same species and the same farming method from other basins, primarily by the very full shell, the high carbohydrate content, the yellow to orange flesh, its tender and smooth texture and its predominantly sweet taste.

Due to their characteristics, the ‘Moule de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ are a market benchmark, especially through their sales price, which is higher than that of products from other production centres.

Causal link

In the 1950s, mussel farmers from the Bay of Aiguillon in search of new sites for mussel farming on bouchots found in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel particularly favourable conditions due to the very slight and regular slope of its foreshore and the traditional land and sea access routes.

The bathymetric conditions allow mussels to benefit considerably from the advantages of farming on bouchots. They also result in the thermal characteristics and turbidity of the bodies of water that favour an abundance of nutritional resources — no additional feed is provided for the mussels. Moreover, the very long residence times of the bodies of water at the bottom of the bay allows successive generations of phytoplankton to stay in contact over a sustained period with the mussels and thereby provide them with an abundance of nutrition.

Other abundant nutritional resources come from the different ecosystems of the bay and contribute to the very well-filled shells and to the specific organoleptic characteristics of the ‘Moule de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’. Among these different resources, the micro-algae present on the surface of the mud flats of the foreshore play an important role — it has been observed that 96 % of siliceous skeletons found in the stomach contents of ‘Moule de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’ belong to four species of diatoms that colonise these sediments.

Furthermore, the characteristics of the bodies of water, by preventing the presence of Mytilus galloprovincialis and the reproduction of Mytilus edulis, protect mussels in the bay from any spatial and nutritional competition and allow them to develop rapidly.

Lastly, thanks to the different measures taken by professionals to control the resource and preserve the environment, this resource can be used by the ‘Moule de bouchot de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel’.

Thus, the geographical environment of the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel allows, by virtue of its natural components, judiciously exploited by professionals since production began, to confer special characteristics on the mussels of the species Mytilus edulis bred on bouchots.

Reference to publication of the specification

(the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of this Regulation)

https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-ac05965a-3df9-44d9-91fb-c7f52e9e6f0f/telechargement

(1) OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 383

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 60 14 November 2017

Notice No	Contents	page
	II Information
	INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2017/C 383/01	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8676 — Hellman & Friedman/Nets) ( 1 )	1
2017/C 383/02	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8621 — Apollo Management/Aegon Ireland) ( 1 )	1
2017/C 383/03	Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8444 — ArcelorMittal/Ilva) ( 1 )	2

	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2017/C 383/04	Euro exchange rates	3
2017/C 383/05	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 5 September 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39813(1) — Baltic Rail — Rapporteur: Denmark	4
2017/C 383/06	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 29 September 2017 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.39813(2) — Baltic Rail — Rapporteur: Denmark	4
2017/C 383/07	Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail	5
2017/C 383/08	Summary of Commission Decision of 2 October 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) (notified under document number C(2017) 6544)	7

	V Announcements
	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY
	European Commission
2017/C 383/09	Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8724 — The Carlyle Group/Palmer & Harvey McLane (Holdings)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	9
2017/C 383/10	Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8672 — easyJet/Certain Air Berlin Assets) ( 1 )	11
	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2017/C 383/11	Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs	12

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1656
JPY	Japanese yen	132,07
DKK	Danish krone	7,4416
GBP	Pound sterling	0,89018
SEK	Swedish krona	9,7705
CHF	Swiss franc	1,1591
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,4913
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,567
HUF	Hungarian forint	312,04
PLN	Polish zloty	4,2349
RON	Romanian leu	4,6562
TRY	Turkish lira	4,5318
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5256
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4809
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,0906
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6877
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,5867
KRW	South Korean won	1 305,01
ZAR	South African rand	16,9688
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,7410
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,5500
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	15 810,86
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8856
PHP	Philippine peso	59,724
RUB	Russian rouble	69,3309
THB	Thai baht	38,535
BRL	Brazilian real	3,8362
MXN	Mexican peso	22,3482
INR	Indian rupee	76,2910


	(1) Text with EEA relevance.