Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5613 — Piraeus Bank/BNP Paribas/Greek JV/Swiss JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 236/01

On 24 September 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 September 2009

2009/C 236/02

1 euro =

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 27 Member States applicable as from 1 September 2009

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))

2009/C 236/03

Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending the implementing Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 27 Member States applicable as from 1 October 2009

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))

2009/C 236/04

Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending the implementing Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate.

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

2009/C 236/05

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following aid measure:

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on State aid with regard to taxation of investment undertakings according to the Liechtenstein Tax Act

2009/C 236/06

By means of Decision No 149/09/COL of 18 March 2009, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice. The Liechtenstein authorities have been informed by means of a copy of the decision.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority hereby gives the EFTA States, EU Member States and interested parties notice to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month from the publication of this notice to:

The comments will be communicated to the Liechtenstein authorities. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

The case was initiated by the Authority sending a request for information to the Liechtenstein authorities 14 March 2007.

According to Section 2 of Act of 3 May 1996 on Investment Undertakings (Gesetz über Investmentunternehmen, hereafter the ‘IUG’) investment undertaking are:

Investment undertaking within the meaning of the IUG describes the fund capital placed by different investors. To deal commercially on the market, an investment undertaking needs to fulfil three requirements in terms of the IUG:

Regardless of the organizational form, the assets transferred by the investors (the managed assets) must be differentiated from the own assets of the management company.

For taxation purposes, in the case of investment companies no distinction was made between the management company’s own assets and the managed assets as both were subject to the rules applying to domiciliary companies as such in accordance with Section 85(2) of the Tax Act. That meant that no income tax was levied for the management activities or for the managed assets. The capital tax was fixed at 1 ‰ instead of 2 ‰ and reduced further for any capital exceeding CHF 2 million. No coupon tax was levied.

With effect from 2006, a new section 35(3) was introduced in the Act on investment undertakings. This provision requires also the investment companies to record and hold separately own and managed assets. Further, the Tax Act was revised in 2005. Section 85(2) of the Tax Act, which provided for a similar taxation as applicable for domiciliary companies and a reduced capital tax for any amount in excess of CHF 2 million, was repealed. Instead, a new section 73(f) was inserted, which require the fund direction of an investment fund and investment companies to pay income and capital tax in relation to its own assets. In addition, following this reform, investment companies were also subject to payment of a coupon tax.

The presence of State aid

The Authority has assessed whether the tax reliefs applicable to investment companies between 1996 and 2006 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Undertaking

According to the European Court of Justice, the notion of an undertaking in the sense of Article 87 EC, which corresponds to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, encompasses ‘every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed’ (1).

Investment companies under Liechtenstein law take corporate form as they are organised as companies limited by shares or Societas Europea. They are active with assembling and managing the assets of various investors with the intention of making profits via various fees related to the placements. The Authority consequently finds that investment companies for the part of the company carrying out the asset management are undertakings within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (2).

Advantage

By not being obliged to pay any income or coupon tax and only a reduced capital tax on their own assets, investment companies received an advantage in relation to other undertakings, in particular towards the fund direction of investment funds who were subject to ordinary taxation on revenues from their business activities.

The advantage is selective as it was granted only to investment undertakings organised in the form of investment companies. In the Authority’s preliminary view, the tax relief on the management company’s own assets cannot be justified by the nature and overall scheme of the Liechtenstein taxation system.

Presence of State resources

The advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources. A loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of state resources in the form of fiscal expenditure (3). The Liechtenstein State foregoes revenues in the form of tax income from the investment companies.

Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

When a support measure granted by the State strengthens the position of an undertaking vis-à-vis other undertakings competing in EEA trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. Therefore, the Authority takes the preliminary view that the tax concessions for the own assets of investment companies from 1996 to 2005 strengthened the competitive position of the investment companies within the EEA, as these tax concessions reduced the ordinary operational costs of these companies compared to other EEA companies which can operate in international markets (4).

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Authority takes the preliminary view that the tax relief on the management companies’ own assets constitutes state aid with the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Compatibility of the aid

The Authority has doubts that the tax derogations under assessment are compatible with the EEA Agreement on the basis of any of the derogations provided for in Article 61(2) and (3) of the EEA Agreement.

Conclusion

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 1(2) of the EEA Agreement. Interested parties are invited to submit their comments within one month from publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(1)  Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov [2000] ECR I-6451, paragraph 75.

(2)  Case T-445/05 Associazione Italiana del risparmio gestito, e.a. v Commission, not yet published, paragraph 127 ff.

(3)  See point 3(3) of the Authority’s Guidelines on measures relating to direct business taxation.

(4)  See Case T-424/05, cited above, paragraph 156.

(5)  Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.

(6)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’.

(7)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’.

(8)  Hereinafter referred to as ‘Protocol 3’.

(9)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and the EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines, which can be found on http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/state_aid_guidelines/

(10)  Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and the EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1), as amended. A consolidated version of the decision can be found on www.eftasurv.int

(11)  The Liechtenstein authorities clarified that the expert opinion constitutes part of the submission of the Liechtenstein government and is part of their reasoning in this case.

(12)  Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt 1961, Nr. 7, with subsequent amendments.

(13)  Cf. Section 2(1)(a) IUG.

(14)  See section 4(1) lit a IUG.

(15)  See section 64 IUG. The fund direction has the legal form of either a company limited by shares, a private establishment or a Societas Europea, see section 65 IUG.

(16)  Section 31 IUG.

(17)  The Liechtenstein authorities have stated that it is impossible to list these fees exhaustively as a fund direction (or the management side of the investment company) is free to levy fees as its own discretion.

(18)  Cf. section 31 IUG.

(19)  Section 24 in conjunction with section 41 of the Liechtenstein Bankruptcy Act.

(20)  Section 35(3) IUG.

(21)  Section 37 IUG.

(22)  Private persons are subject to income tax (Erwerbssteuer) and property tax (Vermögenssteuer), which are not relevant for this investigation.

(23)  The net profit is set in relation to the taxable capital. The tax rate is then set at half the percentage which the net profit constitutes of the taxable capital. However, there is a minimum level of 7,5 % and a maximum ceiling of 15 %, see section 79(2) of the Tax Act.

(24)  Section 88(d) of the Tax Act.

(25)  Section 88(i) of the Tax Act reads: ‘(s)teuerpflichtig ist der Schuldner des Coupons oder der steuerbaren Leistung’.

(26)  LGBL 1996, Nr. 88.

(27)  Cf. the former section 84(5) of the Tax Act. Domiciliary companies are still tax regulated in section 84 of the Tax Act. They are legal entities registered in the public register, which only have their seat or an office in Liechtenstein, but do not exercise any commercial or business activity in Liechtenstein.

(28)  The tax derogation in favour of domiciliary companies pre-dates the entry of Liechtenstein to the EEA Agreement and is therefore not part of this decision, which only deals with tax derogations introduced after 1 May 1995, the date of Liechtenstein’s entry to the EEA.

(29)  Cf. section 85(2) of the Tax Act in the form of the 1996 amendment, LGBL 1996 Nr. 88.

(30)  Sections 88(f), 88(g), 88(h)(3), 88(i)(2) of the 1961 Tax Act which dealt with the coupon taxation of investment funds were repealed, see Government Bill No 69/1995, p. 10, in which it was stated that the repeal of the coupon tax on ‘their’ distributions was a pre-condition for the foundation of investment undertakings. Regarding the entry into force, see Gesetz vom 3. Mai 1996 über die Abänderung des Steuergesetzes, LGBl. Nr. 88 of 10 July 1996.

(31)  See information submitted by the Liechtenstein authorities by letter dated 1 February 2008, paragraphs 48-52.

(32)  Expert opinion DII,b.ii.3. The word profit tax used by the expert refers to what is described in this decision as the income tax.

(33)  The Liechtenstein authorities explained that the investor would be tax liable for the investment in Liechtenstein or in other countries.

(34)  The Liechtenstein authorities explained the 2005/2006 tax reform in their letter of 3 December 2007.

(35)  Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov [2000] ECR I-6451, paragraph 75.

(36)  Case C-8/03, Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA (BBL) v Belgian State [2004] ECR. I-10157, paragraphs 42 and 43. The judgment was given in the area of taxation, however the Authority considers that the problem in question is the same under the State aid rules. See also Commission Decision of 6 September 2005 on the Italian scheme for collective investments in transferable securities, OJ L 268, 27.9.2006, p. 1 (hereafter Italian collective investment scheme).

(37)  See Italian collective investment scheme, paragraph 38.

(38)  Case T-445/05 Associazione Italiana del risparmio gestito, e.a. v Commission, not yet published, paragraph 127 ff.

(39)  The Court of First Instance has e.g. recognised that a fiscal measure does not loose its character as a being selective just because it is based on objective criteria, see judgment of the CFI of 6 March 2002, T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99, Diputación Foral de Álava e.a. v Commission, [2002] ECR II-1275.

(40)  Joined Cases E-5/04 — E-7/04 Fesil and other v the Authority, cited above, paragraphs 82 et seq.

(41)  According to section 73 a, companies limited by shares are obliged to pay capital and income tax.

(42)  See Section 4.1.2 above in this decision.

(43)  Expert opinion DII, b.ii.3.

(44)  See point 3(3) of the Authority’s Guidelines on measures relating to direct business taxation.

(45)  Case T-214/95 Vlaamse Gewest v Commission, ECR [1998] II-717, paragraph 46. Case T-424/05, Italy v Commission, judgement of 4 March 2009, not yet published, paragraph 154 ff.

(46)  See Italian collective investment scheme, paragraph 45. Recently upheld by the Court of First Instance in Case T-445/05 Associazione italiana del risparmio gestito v Commission cited above, and T-424/05 Italy v Commission not yet published.

(47)  See footnote 4.

(48)  See Case T-424/05, cited above, paragraph 160.

Planned closure of complaint 2009/4209

2009/C 236/07

The Commission services have completed their investigation of complaint 2009/4209 regarding the remuneration of doctors who were undergoing specialised training in Italy between 1982 and 1991.

Following examination of the complaint and of the documentation submitted by the complainants from the point of view of the applicable Community law, the Commission services have concluded that it is not possible, at this stage, to identify an infringement of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (1) in the case in question.

Directive 93/16/EEC on facilitating mutual recognition of doctors′ diplomas and coordination of their training states that trainee specialist doctors must receive appropriate remuneration during the training period. This obligation arises specifically from Council Directive 82/76/EEC (2) which amended Directive 75/363/EEC; both directives were consolidated by Directive 93/16/EEC, which was in turn repealed by Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

The deadline for transposing Directive 82/76/EEC was 1 January 1983. In its judgment of 7 July 1987, the Court of Justice of the EC acknowledged that Italy had failed to comply with its obligations by not transposing Directive 82/76/EEC within the deadline laid down. By legislative decree No 257/1991 adopted in 1991 (entry into force: 1 September 1991), Italy had indeed transposed the Directive but had limited the right to remuneration to the academic years 1991/92 and after. In the judgments handed down in preliminary rulings C-131/97 Carbonari and C-371/97 Gozza, the Court considered that the damage suffered by specialist doctors (registered between academic years 1983/84 and 1990/91) could be compensated by retrospectively applying national rules on remuneration, with the national court refraining from applying national rules that ran counter to the Directive (the rules limiting the right to remuneration to 1991/92 and after).

Since several specialist doctors had registered before the academic year 1991/92, proceedings were brought before civil and administrative courts in Italy to obtain damages. In the judgments of 25 February 1994 by the regional court of Lazio, Section 1a, the court admitted the appeals: legislative decree No 257 of 8 August must not be applied by the national courts since this decree reserves application of Community law to those doctors accepted for specialist training in the 1991/92 academic year, leaving the previous training programme for specialist doctors in place.

Notwithstanding this judgment, Italy refused to provide appropriate payment to trainee specialist doctors before the 1990/91 academic year, opting instead to adopt a law, Law No 370 of 19 October 1999, Article 11 of which states that a grant of LIT 13 000 000 should be paid to each doctor who followed specialist training during the period 1983-1991 provided that they were personally covered by the judgment. A ministerial decree had specified the procedures for applying for these grants. Some doctors had appealed this ministerial decree, which led to a ruling recognising that doctors who had followed specialist training and had been registered before the 1991/92 academic year were entitled to damages.

According to the complainants, doctors who have followed specialised training since the deadline for transposition of the Directive in question (31 December 1982) and who were registered in the training programme prior to the 1991/92 academic year are currently being deprived of their entitlement to damages because of the late and incomplete transposition of the Directive by Italy. The Commission services understand why the current complainants are criticising Italy for not having amended the relevant Italian regulations.

Having received other similar complaints from Italian doctors concerning this matter, the Commission services examined Italian case law and found that the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the EC in its rulings in cases C-131/97 Carbonari and C-371/97 Gozza had been fully respected by the national court. The national court had accepted the principle of the retrospective application of entitlement to remuneration by not applying the national rules that were contrary to Directive 82/76/EEC (Article 8 of legislative decree No 257/1991 which limits entitlement to remuneration to the 1991/92 academic years and after) and had recognised entitlement to remuneration and, therefore, to reparation for the damage suffered. Notwithstanding this, in some cases the national court had refused reparation for the damage suffered because of the time limit for bringing a case based on the national law applicable. This decision does not appear to infringe Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EC, in particular in the judgment of 5 March 1996 in cases C-46/93 Brasserie du pêcheur and C-48/93 and Factortame, which states that in the absence of relevant Community provisions on the reparation of damage suffered by private individuals, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to set the criteria for determining the extent of reparation. However, those criteria must not be less favourable than those applying to similar claims based on domestic law (point 83 of the above-mentioned judgment of 5 March 1996). The application of domestic law in this case complies with this principle.

Consequently, the Commission services will propose to the Commission that the corresponding complaint case be closed.

This does not preclude the case being reopened and proceedings being re-initiated should the Commission come into possession — even after closure — of new facts that could justify opening such a new procedure regarding the same subject.

(1)  OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 43, 15.2.1982, p. 21.

(3)  OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 22.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5632 — Pepsico/Pepsi Americas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 236/08

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5633 — Pepsico/The Pepsico Bottling Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 236/09

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5565 — BAE Systems/BVT)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 236/10

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on protected geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2009/C 236/11

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months of the date of this publication.

AMENDMENT APPLICATION

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Amendment application in accordance with article 9

‘MONTES DE TOLEDO’

EC No: ES-PDO-0105-0083-19.09.2007

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment:

2.   Type of amendment:

3.   Amendments:

3.1.   Description:

Amendment of the peroxide value from 12 m O2/kg to 15 m O2/kg.

The reason for the amendment concerning the peroxide value is the fact that in determining the upper limit, account was not taken of the effect that weather conditions have on this each season. Despite the fact that the Cornicabra variety generally has a peroxide value of less than 12 m O2/kg, that value increases naturally if the olive has been subject to low temperatures while it was still on the tree.

Removal of the reference ‘minimum organoleptic assessment: 6,5’, since ‘organoleptic assessment: extra virgin’ is already stated

So far as concerns the minimum organoleptic assessment, it is merely a matter of adapting the earlier requirement to the provisions in Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2002 of 6 May 2002 (Annex II).

3.2.   Geographical area:

Addition of 25 neighbouring municipalities to the current area.

The application to include these 25 municipalities bordering the current area is on the basis of the fact that they make up a homogeneous whole with the other municipalities so far as concerns the varieties used and olive cultivation and olive oil production techniques; as well as from the, inter alia, climatological, geological, edaphological points of view, which results in the oil produced there having the same characteristics as that protected by the PDO Montes de Toledo.

The 25 municipalities, which are all in the Province of Toledo, are the following: Alameda de la Sagra, Añover de Tajo, Borox, Cabañas de la Sagra, Carmena, Carranque, Cedillo del Condado, Cobeja, Esquivias, Illescas, Lominchar, Magán, Numancia de la Sagra, Palomeque, Pantoja, Recas, Seseña, Ugena, Villaluenga de la Sagra, Villaseca de la Sagra, El Viso de San Juan, Yeles, Yuncler, Yunclillos and Yuncos.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘MONTES DE TOLEDO’

EC No: ES-PDO-0105-0083-19.09.2007

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name:

‘Montes de Toledo’

2.   Member State or Third Country:

Spain

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff:

3.1.   Type of product:

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

Extra virgin olive oil obtained from the fruit of the olive tree (Olea Europea L.), of the CORNICABRA variety, by mechanical processes or other physical means that do not lead to deterioration of the oil, conserving the taste, aroma and characteristics of the fruit from which it is obtained.

Physical, chemical and organoleptic properties.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only):

—

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only):

—

3.5.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area:

—

3.6.   Specific rules governing slicing, grating, packaging, etc:

3.7.   Specific rules covering labelling:

The logo of the designation and the words ‘Denominación de Origen Montes de Toledo’ must appear on all labels.

The containers in which the protected oil is packaged for consumption must bear a seal of warranty, label or numbered secondary label issued by the inspection body so that they cannot be reused.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area:

The area is in the interior of the Autonomous Community of Castile-La Mancha, in the south-east of the Province of Toledo and the north-east of the Province of Ciudad Real, of which the central axis is the Montes de Toledo mountain range.

The geographical production area is made up of 128 municipalities in the Provinces of Toledo and Ciudad Real. Of those municipalities, 106 are in the Province of Toledo and 22 in Ciudad Real.

Municipalities in the Province of Toledo:

Ajofrín, Alameda de la Sagra, Albarreal de Tajo, Alcaudete de la Jara, Aldeanueva de Barbarroya, Aldeanueva de San Bartolome, Almonacid de Toledo, Añover de Tajo, Arges, Bargas, Belvis de la Jara, Borox, Burguillos de Toledo, Burujón, Cabañas de la Sagra, Calera y Chozas, Campillo de la Jara, Cañumas, Carmena, Carpio de Tajo (El), Carranque, Casasbuenas, Cebolla, Cedillo del Condado, Cobeja, Chueca, Cobisa, Consuegra, Cuerva, Dosbarrios, Espinoso del Rey, Esquivias, Estrella (La), Gálvez, Guadamur, Guardia (La), Herencias (Las), Hontanar, Huerta de Valdecarábanos, Illescas, Layos, Lominchar, Madridejos, Magán, Malpica de Tajo, Manzaneque, Marjaliza, Mascaraque, Mata (La), Mazarambroz, Menasalbas, Mesegar, Mocejón, Mohedas de la Jara, Montearagón, Mora, Nambroca, Nava de Ricomalillo (La), Navahermosa, Navalmorales (Los), Navalucillos (Los), Noez, Numancia de la Sagra, Olías del Rey, Orgaz, Palomeque, Pantoja, Polán, Puebla de Montalban (La), Pueblanueva (La), Pulgar, Recas, Retamoso, Robledo de Mazo, Romeral (El), San Bartolome de las Abiertas, San Martín de Montalbán, San Martín de Pusa, San Pablo de los Montes, Santa Ana de Pusa, Seseña, Sevilleja de la Jara, Sonseca, Talavera de la Reina, Tembleque, Toledo, Torrecilla de la Jara, Totanes, Turleque, Ugena, Urda, Ventas con Peña Aguilera (Las), Villaluenga de la Sagra, Villaminaya, Villamuelas, Villanueva de Bogas, Villarejo de Montalbán, Villaseca de la Sagra, Villasequilla de Yepes, El Viso de San Juan, Yébenes (Los), Yeles, Yepes, Yuncler, Yunclillos and Yuncos.

Municipalities in the Province of Ciudad Real:

Alcoba, Anchuras, Arroba de los Montes, Cortijos (Los), El Robledo, Fernancaballero, Fontanarejo, Fuente el Fresno, Herencia, Horcajo de los Montes, Labores (Las), Luciana, Malagón, Navalpino, Navas de Estena, Picón, Piedrabuena, Porzuna, Puebla de Don Rodrigo, Puertolápice, Retuerta del Bullaque and Villarrubia de los Ojos.

5.   Link with the geographical area:

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area:

The production area of olives for making protected oils is located in the Montes de Toledo range.

The Montes de Toledo are a line of low mountains with extensive flat areas in the interior.

Temperatures are fairly markedly continental.

Average annual rainfall is between 400 and 600 mm, and winter is the wettest season.

5.2.   Specificity of the product:

The characteristics of the ‘Montes de Toledo’ monovarietal Cornicabra olive oil are as follows:

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI):

The soil and climatic conditions of the area, and the work of numerous generations of olive growers, have resulted in the natural selection of the Cornicabra variety, the best adapted to the area and the only one used in the production of ‘Montes de Toledo’ olive oil.

With regard to the link between the geological and soil conditions, it should be noted how the formation of soils that are generally not very fertile has again left its mark on the crop, which is subject to continuous stress, these aspects having in turn acted as a means of natural selection, leading to product differentiation.

The Cornicabra variety together with the soil and climatic conditions of the area give the oil its specific physico-chemical and organoleptic properties referred to in point 4.2.

Reference to publication of the specification:

Regional Ministry of Agriculture Decision of 15 June 2007 granting the application to amend the specification of the Protected Designation of Origin Montes de Toledo (Resolución de 15 de junio de 2007, de la Consejería de Agricultura, por la que se adopta decisión favorable sobre solicitud de modificación del pliego de condiciones de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Montes de Toledo).

Official Gazette of Castile-La Mancha (D.O.C.M.) No 142 of 6 July 2007

The specification was published as an annex to that Decision.

It can be found at:

http://docm.jccm.es/portaldocm/verDiarioAntiguo.do?ruta=2006/07/06

Resolución de 15 de junio de 2007, Consejería de Agricultura por la que se adopta decisión favorable sobre solicitud de modificacion de pliego de condiciones de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Montes de Toledo. d.o.c.m. no 142 de 6 de julio de 2007. pág. 18173

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2009/C 236/12

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months of the date of this publication.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘AGLIO DI VOGHIERA’

EC No: IT-PDO-0005-0638-30.07.2007

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name:

‘Aglio di Voghiera’

2.   Member State or Third Country:

Italy

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff:

3.1.   Type of product (Annex II):

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

The ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ protected designation of origin is for the ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ garlic ecotype. It is a plant with uniform luminescent white bulbs with very few pink striations. The skins enveloping the cloves are white in colour, sometimes with striations of a more or less intense pink colour. The bulbs are rounded, regular and compact in shape, slightly flattened at the point of attachment to the root system. The bulb is made up of a variable number of cloves, which are joined together in a compact manner, with characteristic curving on the outside, fitting snugly together. When released for consumption, ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ must present as follows: sound bulbs with no signs of rot, free of parasites, cleaned, compact, free of frost- or sun-damage, free of externally visible sprouts, free of abnormal external moisture, free of any foreign smell and/or taste. Only ‘Extra’ class garlic (minimum diameter 45 mm) or Class I garlic (minimum diameter 40 mm) may be recognised as ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ PDO. ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ is placed on the market in the following forms: FRESH/GREEN GARLIC with green stalk, firm at the collar, and the outer skin of the bulb still fresh, white- or ivory-coloured bulb, possibly with pink striations, whitish roots; SEMI-DRY GARLIC: stalk not completely dry, ranging from green in colour to whitish, less firm at the collar; outer skin of the bulb not completely dry, bulb white or ivory in colour, possibly with pink striations, whitish roots; DRY GARLIC: dry stalk, whitish in colour and delicate in consistency, outer skin of the bulb and the skin surrounding each clove completely dry, white-coloured bulb containing visible cloves, ivory-coloured roots.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only):

—

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only):

—

3.5.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area:

All production operations must be carried out within the production area, since the specific characteristics of ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ may be attributed both to the knowledge of the producers and to the typical climate conditions of the area and the types of soil present.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.:

The fresh product must be placed on the market between the day it is picked and five days after, the semi-dry product between the sixth and 10th day after picking and the dry product after the 11th day. All the products are placed on the market in the following forms: braid (treccia) of from 5 to 18 bulbs weighing between 400 and 900 g, extra-large braid (treccia extra) of from 8 to 80 bulbs weighing between 1 and 5 kg, net containing a variable number of bulbs weighing between 100 and 500 grams, bags of a variable number of bulbs weighing between 1 and 5 kg, small braids (treccina) of from 3 to 5 bulbs weighing between 150 and 500 g, and individual bulbs weighing between 50 and 100 g. The packaging is made from net, wood, plastic, card, paper and natural plant materials. Containers used as packaging must be sealed so as to prevent the contents from being removed without breaking the packaging. Individual bulbs must have the stalk and roots completely removed. The packaging must be carried out carefully in such a way as to ensure that transportation and excessive handling do not cause heads to be broken or, above all, make the skin fragment, thus creating the risk of mould and deterioration of the product.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling:

All packaging must bear, in legible, indelible writing on the same side, the information identifying the packer or shipper. The containers must also feature the name ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ and the words ‘denominazione di origine protetta’ (protected denomination of origin) or acronym DOP (PDO) in larger characters than any other wording featured on the packaging, and the Community logo. Individual items must bear a label with the name ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ and the letters ‘DOP’ (PDO) with the Community logo and the producer’s name. The circular logo is made up of a symbol representing a garlic clove inset into the curve of the letter V on a light blue background. The body of the garlic clove is yellow, with shading in a darker colour. Within the circle, the words ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ are written in black at an oblique angle. At the top, within the circle, the letters DOP (PDO) are shown in black. For publicity purposes only, a black and white version may be used; in this case, the circular logo is surrounded by a black line. When printed on a label, the logo must be reproduced at a scale of 1/3 with regard to the total size of the label.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area:

The ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ production area comprises the following municipalities in the Province of Ferrara: Voghiera, Masi Torello, Portomaggiore, Argenta and Ferrara.

5.   Link with the geographical area:

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area:

The area where ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ is cultivated is on the plain, in delta and multi-river basin conditions which offer an ideal climate for the growth of the product. The soil types are predominantly clay, clay-loam and silty-loam. The abundant fluvial sand deposits confer great underground water draining capacity, which favours the growth and development of garlic while safeguarding it from the risk of rot. The climate is characterised by low rainfall compared with other areas of the plain, with rain more frequent in spring than in the summer months. The hot, sunny summers the area enjoys favour harvesting operations and, in combinations with the humidity conditions typical of the Ferrara area, allows ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ to be dried in a slow and gradual fashion.

5.2.   Specificity of the product:

The special characteristics of ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ are its luminescent white colour, the large, round and regular bulb made up of tightly compacted cloves and, most especially, its great keeping qualities. Its chemical composition is a perfect balance of volatile oils with sulphur compounds, enzymes, vitamin B, mineral salts and flavonoids. Another no less important characteristic is the specific genetic identity, demonstrated through DNA amplification techniques and the fruit of a natural selection process effected by applying selection methods handed down from generation to generation.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI):

The characteristics of ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ stem not only from human factors but also from its strong link with the environment. The typical characteristics of the product identified in Section 5.2 should be attributed to the land in which it is grown. The clay, clay-loam and silty-loam soils in which extensive fluvial sand deposits promote underground water drainage give rise to the keeping quality of the bulbs, their large growth, luminescent white colour and, in particular, their characteristic regular and compact shape. The reproduction of the cloves from seed by vegetative propagation using the best cloves from a bulb produces the perfect balance of enzymes, vitamins and mineral salts that give this garlic a specific genetic identity. As stated above, the other strong link that makes ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ special is that with the people of the area. They have always paid special attention to irrigation techniques during sowing and harvesting seasons and, with skills refined over the years and handed down from father to son, have hand-selected the best bulbs from previous harvests from which to draw the material to be sown, making sure that large and healthy specimens were selected, and have prepared and worked the bulbs with masterly craftsmanship, hand-making bunches, braids, smaller braids and individual bulbs and, lastly, have passed on such delicious recipes. Archaeological evidence, recent and past, of ancient Voghenza confirms the predominant role of this centre for the Po delta up to at least the seventh century. At the end of the high medieval period, the d’Este, the Dukes of Ferrara, gave the Voghiera territory a new lease of life. The domain of the d’Este family provided incentives for every possible crop on the land of this area, with particular focus on kitchen garden plants such as salad vegetables, herbs and aromatic plants and, above all, garlic. After the departure of the d’Estes in 1598, the experience gained in the agricultural field was not entirely lost since other illustrious owners noted the value of these fertile lands along the former Po river course which still today enable highly specialised crops such as garlic to be grown.

Reference to publication of the specification:

The government launched the national objection procedure with the publication of the proposal for recognising ‘Aglio di Voghiera’ as a protected designation of origin in Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 124 of 30 May 2007.

The full text of the product specification is available: