13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5734 — Liberty Global Europe/Unitymedia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 36/01

On 25 January 2010, 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:

—	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/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5734. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 36/02

Date of adoption of the decision	13.1.2010
Reference number of State Aid	NN 29/08
Member State	Hungary
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Üzemanyag jövedéki adójának visszaigénylési lehetösége a vasúti, vizi és légi szállítás jogszabályban meghatározott területein
Legal basis	2003. évi CXXVII. Törvény
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Sectoral development, Environmental protection
Form of aid	Tax rate reduction
Budget	Annual budget: HUF 7 650 million Overall budget: HUF 76 500 million
Intensity	—
Duration (period)	5.2007-4.2017
Economic sectors	Railways, Inland water transport
Name and address of the granting authority	Pénzügyminisztérium Budapest József Nádor tér 2–4. 1051 MAGYARORSZÁG/HUNGARY
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 February 2010

2010/C 36/03

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,3572
JPY	Japanese yen	122,33
DKK	Danish krone	7,4445
GBP	Pound sterling	0,86910
SEK	Swedish krona	9,9144
CHF	Swiss franc	1,4650
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	8,0630
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	26,025
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	270,48
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,7091
PLN	Polish zloty	4,0172
RON	Romanian leu	4,1268
TRY	Turkish lira	2,0619
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5366
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4269
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	10,5464
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,9560
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,9198
KRW	South Korean won	1 563,39
ZAR	South African rand	10,4432
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	9,2737
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,3155
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	12 674,61
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,6423
PHP	Philippine peso	62,779
RUB	Russian rouble	41,0880
THB	Thai baht	45,066
BRL	Brazilian real	2,5284
MXN	Mexican peso	17,6572
INR	Indian rupee	63,1000

---

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

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 11 December 2009 at 15.00 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.350 — Microsoft

Rapporteur: France

2010/C 36/04

1.	The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns as to the compatibility with Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement of Microsoft’s behaviour as expressed in the draft decision communicated to the Advisory Committee.

2.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

3.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Microsoft are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission in its draft decision.

4.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by Microsoft and the observations submitted by interested third parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

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

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/5

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case COMP/39.530 — Microsoft (Tying)

2010/C 36/05

The draft Decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) concerns the allegedly illegal tying by Microsoft Corporation (‘Microsoft’) of its web browser Internet Explorer to its dominant client personal computer (‘PC’) operating system Windows (‘Windows’).

At the origin of the case is a complaint which the Commission received at the end of 2007. The Commission opened proceedings and adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) setting out its competition concerns. The SO was notified to Microsoft on 15 January 2009. It constitutes a preliminary assessment within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

Shortly after the notification of the SO, access to file was granted to Microsoft by letter of 26 January 2009. Further access to information, initially provisionally classified as confidential, was later provided on several occasions. Since Microsoft had to devote additional time to obtain and review justifications of confidentiality claims, engage in multiple exchanges of correspondence with the Commission and taking into account the need for Microsoft to review and, where appropriate, take the additional information into account in its response to the SO, I granted a limited further extension of the deadline of one week.

After proceedings were opened, four companies (Google Inc., McAfee Inc., Mozilla, Symantec Corporation) and eight associations applied and were admitted as interested third parties (Association for Competitive Technology, Computing Technology Industry Association, European Committee for Interoperable Systems, Free Software Foundation Europe e.V., International Association of Microsoft Certified Partners, Software & Information Industry Association, Pan-European ICT & eBusiness Network for SMEs, UFC Que Choisir). One association was not admitted, since it could not show that the questions raised in this case were sufficiently closely connected to the general aims pursued by the association (3).

In its reply to the SO, Microsoft requested an Oral Hearing which was subsequently arranged for 3, 4 and 5 June 2009. However, it later declined to be heard on these dates and applied on 15 May 2009 to postpone the Oral Hearing, allegedly in order to allow senior Commission officials to be present and also provide Microsoft with more time to review and respond to any written observations the complainant and third parties might submit.

In view of the assurances given to Microsoft regarding the presence of senior Commission officials at the Oral Hearing, as well as the timely disclosure of third party comments, I rejected Microsoft's request for a postponement on 18 May 2009. Microsoft was invited in the same letter to reconsider its position and to confirm its request for an Oral Hearing. It replied on 19 May 2009 that it was unable to accept the proposed dates. I therefore considered the request for an Oral Hearing to be withdrawn.

Additional facts gathered by the Commission after the adoption of the SO were presented to Microsoft in a Letter of Facts sent on 24 July 2009. On the same day, new access to the file was granted.

In October 2009, Microsoft submitted commitments to the Commission, while continuing to disagree with its preliminary findings as set out in the SO.

The key commitments were as follows:

—	Microsoft would make available a mechanism in Windows within the EEA that enables PC manufacturers and users to turn Internet Explorer off and on,

—	PC manufacturers would be free to pre-install any web browser(s) of their choice on PCs they ship and set this as the default web browser,

—	Microsoft would distribute a choice screen software update to users of Windows PCs within the EEA by means of Windows Update. The choice screen would give users an opportunity to choose whether and which competing web browser(s) to install.

The complete commitments were published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 9 October 2009 pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (4) and interested third parties invited to give their observations on these commitments within one month following publication.

After having been informed of the observations, Microsoft amended its commitments.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in light of the amended commitments, there are no longer grounds for action on its part and that, without prejudice to Article 9(2), the proceedings should be brought to an end.

Microsoft declared to the Commission on 30 November 2009 that it has received sufficient access to the information on the Commission file that it considered necessary to propose commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

In light of the above, I consider that the right to be heard has been respected in this case.

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).

(2)  Hereinafter, all Articles and chapters referred to are those of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

(3)  On the requirement for an association to show that it or its members have a sufficient interest in a case before it may be admitted as an intervener, see the recent Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 5 February 2009 in Case C-550/07 P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd.

(4)  OJ C 242, 9.10.2009, p. 20.

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/7

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 16 December 2009

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/39.530 — Microsoft (Tying))

(notified under document C(2009) 10033)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 36/06

On 16 December 2009, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). 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. The decision is available on the Directorate-General for Competition’s website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

(1)	The case concerns Microsoft Corporation (hereafter ‘Microsoft’) and its potentially illegal tying of its web browser Internet Explorer to its dominant client PC operating system ‘Windows’.

1.   Preliminary competition concerns

(2)

In a Statement of Objections of 14 January 2009 the Commission took the preliminary view that the criteria for illegal tying were fulfilled in this case (2): (i) Microsoft did not contest that it holds a dominant position on the client PC operating system market with its Windows operating system; (ii) the Commission provisionally considered that Internet Explorer and Windows were separate products; (iii) the Commission took the preliminary view that, before Windows 7 was released, computer manufacturers and end users could not technically and legally obtain Windows without Internet Explorer. Neither for Original Equipment Manufacturers (‘OEMs’) nor for end users was it technically possible to remove Internet Explorer from Windows, and licensing agreements prevented OEMs from selling Windows without Internet Explorer; (iv) the Commission also provisionally considered that the tying was liable to foreclose competition on the merits between web browsers.

(3)

The Commission took the preliminary view that Internet Explorer enjoyed a distribution advantage that other web browsers were unable to match and that there were barriers to downloading web browsers from the Internet. The Commission also preliminarily considered that, in addition to reinforcing Microsoft's position on the market for client PC operating systems, the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows created artificial incentives for web developers and software designers to optimise their products primarily for Internet Explorer.

2.   Commitment decision

(4)	Microsoft proposed commitments to address the Commission's preliminary competition concerns.

(5)	By decision of 16 December 2009 pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission made these commitments binding upon Microsoft. The main commitments can be summarised as follows:

(6)	First, Microsoft agreed to make available a mechanism in Windows within the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) that enables OEMs and users to turn Internet Explorer off and on.

(7)

Second, according to the commitments proposed by Microsoft, OEMs will be free to pre-install any web browser(s) of their choice on PCs they ship and set it as default web browser. Microsoft will not circumvent the commitments by any means and shall not retaliate against OEMs for installing competing web browsers.

(8)

Microsoft offered to distribute a choice screen software update to users of Windows PCs within the EEA by means of Windows Update. Windows XP, Vista and 7 users who have Internet Explorer set as their default web browser (no matter how this setting came about) and who subscribed to Windows Update will be prompted with this choice screen, which will offer them a choice of web browsers, and present them with links where they can find more information about the web browsers presented on the screen.

(9)	The decision finds that, in view of the commitments made binding upon Microsoft, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission. The decision shall be binding on Microsoft for a total period of five years from the date of adoption.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(2)  See Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601, at paragraphs 842, 869 and 1058. See also Communication from the Commission ‘Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings’, OJ C 45, 24.2.2009, at paragraph 50.

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5669 — Cisco/Tandberg)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 36/07

1.

On 8 February 2010 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Cisco Systems Inc., (‘Cisco Systems’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Tandberg ASA (‘Tandberg’, Norway & US) by way of public bid announced on 1 October 2009.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — Cisco Systems: is globally active in the development and sale of networking products for the Internet. Cisco designs, manufactures, and sell Internet Protocol (IP)-based networking and other products related to the communications and information technology industry. Its offering includes high-quality ‘immersive’ video communications solutions, — Tandberg: offers a broad range of video communications solutions including immersive systems for dedicated rooms, systems for multi-purpose conference rooms, and personal video conferencing systems.

3.	On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5669 — Cisco/Tandberg, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/10

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5717 — The Stanley Works/The Black & Decker Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 36/08

1.

On 5 February 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Stanley Works (‘Stanley’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation the sole control of the Black & Decker Corporation (‘Black & Decker’).

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for Stanley: worldwide manufacturer mainly of hand tools and engineered solutions for industrial, construction, do-it-yourself (DIY) use, and security solutions for commercial applications, — for Black & Decker: supplier worldwide manufacturer of power tools and accessories, hardware and home and garden products, and fastening and assembly-based systems.

3.	On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5717 — The Stanley Works/The Black & Decker Corporation, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

---

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/11

---

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

2010/C 36/09

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.

SUMMARY

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘ESTEPA’

EC No: ES-PDO-005-0341-16.04.2004

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

This summary sets out the main elements of the product specification for information purposes.

1.   Responsible department in the Member State:

Name:	Subdirección General de Calidad Diferenciada y Agricultura Ecológica. Dirección General de Industrias y Mercados Alimentarios. Secretaría General de Medio Rural. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino
Address:	Paseo Infanta Isabel, 1 28071 Madrid ESPAÑA
Tel.	+34 913475394
Fax	+34 913475710
E-mail:	—

2.   Group:

Name:	Oleoestepa, Sociedad Cooperativa Andaluza. Puricon, Sociedad Cooperativa Andaluza y Sierra del Aguila, Sociedad Limitada
Address:	Calle Estepa, 12 41564 Lora de Estepa (Sevilla) ESPAÑA
Tel.	+34 954829098
Fax	+34 954829069
E-mail:	—
Composition:	—

3.   Type of product:

Extra virgin olive oil — Class 1.5: Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.)

4.   Specification:

(Summary of requirements under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

4.1.   Name:

‘Estepa’

4.2.   Description:

Extra virgin olive oil obtained from the fruit of the following varieties of olive (Olea Europea L.), there being three types of extra virgin olive oil:

—	Hojiblanca, Arbequina, Manzanilla, Picual and Lechín de Sevilla,

—	Hojiblanca and Arbequina,

—	Hojiblanca.

Oils protected by the Designation of Origin are extra virgin oils that, after ageing in cellars, have the following characteristics:

Median score for fruitiness: equal to or greater than 4,5

Acidity: up to a maximum of 0,3

Peroxide value: maximum 15

Ultraviolet absorbency (K270): maximum of 0,18 meq. of active oxygen per kilogram of oil

Natural antioxidants polyphenols (% caffeic acid): maximum: 611 ppm (mg/kg) minimum: 405 ppm (mg/kg)

Bitterness (K225): ≤ 0,3 nm

Oxidative stability performance (RANCIMAT): measured in hours (at 100 °C and airflow of 10 l/h)   maximum: 92,5   minimum: 43,6

Chlorophyll and carotene concentration (mg/kg = ppm)   Chlorophylls Carotenes Maximum: 23,25 10,94 Minimum: 7,17 6,42

Ratio of oleic acid to linoleic acid: maximum: 13,82; minimum: 4,54

Ratio of monounsaturated fatty acids to polyunsaturated fatty acids: maximum: 12,51; minimum: 4,47 Tocopherols (mg/kg = ppm) Total tocopherols Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Maximum 295,7 286,1 3,0 10,3 0 Minimum 261,1 254,1 1,1 1,0 0

In addition, the colour of the oil on the BTB (bromothymol blue) scale may vary in the range: 2/3 — 3/3 — 2/4 — 3/4 — 2/5 — 3/5.

As a result of their early harvesting these olives have a fruitiness reminiscent of olives between green and ripe, with the characteristic of the green olive predominating.

The characteristics of the olives vary according to the variety:

—

Hojiblanca, Arbequina, Manzanilla, Picual and Lechín de Sevilla This oil is made from at least 50 % of extra virgin olive oil of the Hojiblanca variety, between 20 and 30 % of the Arbequina variety and up to 5 % of the other varieties (Manzanilla, Picual and Lechin de Sevilla). This type of oil has the fruitiness of green rather than ripe olives with a medium intensity. It has the bitterness and spiciness characteristic of oils obtained at the beginning of the season. Waxes: between 80 and 150 ppm.

—

Hojiblanca and Arbequina This oil is made from between 40 and 60 % of extra virgin olive oil of the Hojiblanca variety and between 40 and 60 % of the Arbequina variety. This type of oil has aromas and flavours of fresh and/or ripe fruits and the fruitiness of from green to semi-ripe olives. It has the bitterness and spiciness characteristic of oils obtained at the beginning of the season. Waxes: between 50 and 80 ppm.

—

Hojiblanca This oil is 100 % extra virgin olive oil of the Hojiblanca variety. This type of oil has aromas and flavours of fresh and/or ripe fruits and fresh grass and the fruitiness of green olives. It has the bitterness and spiciness characteristic of oils obtained at the beginning of the season. Waxes: between 40 and 70 ppm.

4.3.   Geographical area:

The area covers 11 municipalities in the Province of Seville: Aguadulce, Badolatosa, Casariche, Estepa, Gilena, Herrera, Lora de Estepa, Marinaleda, Pedrera, La Roda de Andalucía and El Rubio, and one municipality in the Province of Córdoba: Puente Genil, specifically the area known as Miragenil.

4.4.   Proof of origin:

The olives are of authorised varieties from registered groves in the production area.

The olives are pressed in registered mills and the oil packed in registered packing plants located in the production area under conditions guaranteeing optimum conservation.

The provenance of the extra virgin olive oil in storage after pressing can be found from the production register, which also records the date and time of production and the production factors involved in obtaining the oil.

Physico-chemical analyses and organoleptic tests are carried out on the oil to guarantee its quality. The physico-chemical analyses are carried out to verify compliance with the criteria set out in the product description.

Only extra virgin olive oil that has successfully passed all the checks throughout the production process is packed and placed on the market bearing the numbered secondary label of the Regulatory Council that guarantees its origin.

4.5.   Method of production:

Most of the groves are planted 12 × 12 in the traditional, staggered pattern. New intensive groves have much higher densities and therefore much smaller planting patterns. Fertilisation is carried out in winter, after the harvest. More intensively planted groves have generally led to an increase in irrigation. Irrigation systems are in almost all cases localised systems. The shape of the olive trees is a result of the types of pruning used, known as goblet pruning and rational pruning, which involve removing large cuts of wood from the trunk. The authorised plant-health products must not harm useful fauna and leave no residues in the olives.

The olives are harvested with care directly from the tree using the traditional methods of beating with poles, hand picking or vibration. The fruit is always transported in bulk in trailers or rigid containers. The olives are then pressed at registered mills within 24 hours of harvesting. Preparation involves the following stages: cleaning and washing the olives; pressing; beating the paste; phase separation; decantation; storage in tanks until packing; transportation in bulk and packing.

4.6.   Link:

A large number of olive groves are planted on limy soil, a soil that, by its action on the trees, is better at preventing them taking up iron. The soil is also much better at retaining water, which means that during dry periods plantations on this type of soil are moister. This creates a particular type of grove with its own characteristics and hence oils that are clearly different and characteristic.

Studies show that this type of soil promotes a higher concentration of antioxidants that are of particular interest from the point of view of nutrition, i.e. tocopherols, and particularly α-tocopherol, which is present in higher proportions (> 95 %).

Another factor that influences the characteristics of the oils is the local climate, in that the water stress caused by the scarcity of water in the area gives the oil a more pronounced bitterness (K225) than is found in oils obtained from olives grown elsewhere.

The low rainfall also increases the levels of natural antioxidants.

The fact that a significant proportion of the olives grown in the Estepa area are table olives (around 30 % of total production) means that harvesting takes place earlier, giving the olives distinct chemical and organoleptic properties.

Early harvesting in the Estepa area means that the oils:

—	are richer in phenolic compounds,

—	are found to be more bitter in organoleptic tests, a characteristic of oils produced at the beginning of the season,

—	have greater oxidative stability,

—	have a greater concentration of pigments, specifically chlorophylls and carotenes.

There are changes in the composition of the oils, which generally have a higher linoleic acid content while the oleic acid content remains the same, causing the ratio of monounsaturated fats to polyunsaturated fats to fall.

The variation in the polyphenol content and the stability of the oil are linked to the time of harvesting.

4.7.   Inspection body:

Name:	Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen «Estepa»
Address:	Polígono Industrial Sierra Sur: Edificio Centro de Empresas s/n 41560 Estepa (Sevilla) ESPAÑA
Tel.	+34 955912630
Fax	+34 955912630
E-mail:	—

The inspection body complies with European Standard EN-45011.

4.8.   Labelling:

Labels and secondary labels must bear the words: Denominación de Origen «Estepa» (Designation of Origin Estepa).

The commercial labels of each registered company must be approved by the Regulatory Council.

All packaging in which the oil is released for consumption must carry a guarantee seal and a numbered label or secondary label issued by the Regulatory Council, in accordance with the Quality and Procedures Manual, affixed at the registered warehouse, mill or packing plant in such a way that it cannot be reused.

---