17.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/5

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Power Cables

(AT.39610)

2014/C 319/05

I. INTRODUCTION

The case concerns an almost worldwide cartel in the markets for submarine (‘SM’) and underground (‘UG’) power cables, involving the following undertakings: Nexans (2); Prysmian and its former parents, Pirelli and Goldman Sachs (3); JPS and its joint-venture parents, Hitachi and Sumitomo (4); Viscas and its joint-venture parents, Furukawa and Fujikura (5); ABB (6); Brugg (7); Silec, its current parent, General Cable and its predecessor and former parent, Safran (8); EXSYM and its joint venture parents, Showa and Mitsubishi (9); LS Cable (10); Taihan (11); and NKT (12) (together the ‘addressees of the decision’).

II. PROCEDURE

1. Investigation

The investigation started on the basis of an application for immunity submitted by ABB on 17 October 2008 under the Leniency Notice (13). ABB received conditional immunity on 22 December 2008. The Commission conducted surprise inspections at the premises of Nexans and Prysmian from 28 January to 3 February 2009. On 2 February 2009 and 20 April 2009, JPS (jointly with its parent companies, Sumitomo and Hitachi) and Mitsubishi respectively applied for a reduction of the fines in accordance with the Leniency Notice. On 29 June 2011, the Commission informed Mitsubishi that it had reached the preliminary conclusion that Mitsubishi had not submitted evidence representing significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission’s possession.

Prysmian and Nexans lodged applications for annulment to the General Court of the Commission’s inspection decisions. By judgments of 14 November 2012 (14), the General Court found that, before adoption of the inspection decision, the Commission had reasonable grounds for ordering an inspection covering only high voltage SM and UG electric cables and the material associated with them. It therefore annulled the inspection decisions concerning Nexans and Prysmian to the extent that those decisions concerned electric cables other than high voltage SM and UG electric cables and the material associated with them. On 15 March 2013, Nexans brought an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-135/09 (15). At the time of writing, that appeal is still pending.

2. Statement of objections

4.	On 30 June 2011, the Commission issued a statement of objections (‘SO’) to the addressees of the decision and to one other party (together ‘the addressees of the SO’).

The Commission alleged that from 18 February 1999 to 28 January 2009 the addressees of the SO engaged in agreements and concerted practices with the aim of allocating markets and customers and maintaining prices above the competitive level for SM and UG power cable projects. According to the Commission’s preliminary findings, European and Asian producers agreed not to compete in each other’s home territories and European suppliers agreed on the allocation of territories and customers for projects within the EEA. This behaviour was considered to amount to a complex single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

3. Access to the file/Confidentiality

6.	In July 2011, the addressees of the SO were granted access to the file via an access-to-file DVD (16) and to the corporate statements of the immunity and leniency applicants at the premises of the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’).

a. Requests for additional access to the file

7.	DG Competition dealt with requests for additional access to the file by LS Cable, Goldman Sachs, Nexans and NKT.

I received three requests for additional access to the file from Goldman Sachs that DG Competition had rejected. These concerned parts of Prysmian’s reply to a Commission’s request for information of 20 October 2009, and certain documents annexed to it. I accepted two of these requests entirely and one partially. As a result of accepting one request, I adopted a decision pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU ordering disclosure to Goldman Sachs of Prysmian’s reply to one question of the request for information of 20 October 2009.

b. Documents obtained from the Spanish Competition Commission

In October 2011, I received a request from Nexans for, among other things, access to documents which the Commission had obtained from the Spanish Competition Commission (‘CNC’) following an inspection carried out by the CNC in the power cables sector in Spain. Nexans was in possession of a decision from the CNC informing it that the documents seized had been transferred to the Commission. Nexans had not found any such documents in the Commission’s file and therefore claimed that the file was incomplete. DG Competition rejected Nexans’ request stating that the documents obtained from the CNC (the ‘Spanish documents’) were not part of the file as they did not contain information relevant to the investigation in Case AT.39610.

10.

I took the view that the Spanish documents were part of the Commission’s file in Case AT.39610 and had therefore to be made accessible to the addressees of the SO. Paragraph 8 of the Notice on Access to the File (17) provides that the Commission’s file consists of all documents that ‘have been obtained, produced and/or assembled by the Commission Directorate-General for Competition, during the investigation’. The Commission had obtained the Spanish documents pursuant to a request to the CNC under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (18) in the context of the investigation in Case AT.39610.

11.

DG Competition decided that, given their sizeable amount, those documents would first be given un-redacted to the outside lawyers of the addressees of the SO, so that the lawyers could select relevant evidence for their clients’ defence. After that, non-confidential versions of the selected documents would be given to the addressees of the SO. The ‘outside lawyers-only’ procedure lasted from November 2011 to January 2012 and more than 1 300 documents were selected as a result. In February 2012, the addressees of the SO received non-confidential versions of the selected documents and on this basis submitted written comments between February and April 2012.

12.	Some addressees of the SO made requests for additional access to the Spanish documents. DG Competition accepted almost all of them. I received one request from Prysmian, which I partially granted.

13.

In July 2012, the outside lawyers who had been given access to the un-redacted version of the Spanish documents were requested either to destroy or to return to DG Competition these documents and any copy or transcript thereof. Those lawyers were also informed that the documents would remain in the Commission’s file and that they could request a further review at a later stage if they believed this would be justified for the exercise of their clients’ rights of defence.

c. Access to other parties’ replies to the SO before the oral hearing

14.

Upon request, DG Competition granted certain parents, subsidiaries and joint venture partners access to parts of each other’s replies to the SO (Prysmian and Pirelli, Prysmian and Goldman Sachs, Mitsubishi and Showa/EXSYM) concerning the issue of parental liability (19). It also granted them the opportunity to submit comments in writing.

15.

In this context, I received a request from Goldman Sachs for access to three annexes to Prysmian’s reply to the SO, containing minutes of Prysmian’s board meetings. After review of their contents, I concluded that two of the annexes contained passages which were potentially exculpatory for Goldman Sachs. However, in order to ensure a correct reading of the potentially exculpatory passages in their context, I decided that the whole content of the two annexes had to be disclosed to Goldman Sachs, thereby also allowing the Commission to potentially use them in the decision. In those circumstances, since Prysmian raised objections, I adopted a decision pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU ordering disclosure of the documents to Goldman Sachs.

16.

In addition, I received requests from Nexans and NKT for disclosure of exculpatory evidence in the replies of other addressees to the SO. After I discussed the matter with DG Competition, the latter disclosed, on 16 May and 1 June 2012, potentially exculpatory evidence from the replies of ABB, JPS/Sumitomo/Hitachi, LS Cable, EXSYM and Viscas to the addressees of the SO concerned. In addition, by letter of 1 June 2012 DG Competition informed the addressees of the SO of certain factual inaccuracies in the SO which it had identified following examination of the replies, thereby removing the need to give access to the passages of those replies that had pointed out the inaccuracies concerned. The addressees of the SO were given the opportunity to comment either orally at the hearing or in writing after the hearing.

4. Time limits for replying to the SO

17.

The Commission set a time period of 10 weeks in which to respond to the SO; this was due to expire in September 2011. Almost all of the addressees of the SO requested an extension of the deadline. In accordance with Article 10 of Decision 2001/462/EC (20) in force at the time, I dealt with these requests directly.

18.	I granted a three-week extension in view of the impact of the summer period on the preparation of the replies to the SO. It is indeed customary that additional time is granted if the period for reply to the SO includes all or part of the month of August (21).

19.

I granted an additional one-week extension to certain Asian addressees of the SO on the ground that in preparation of their defence they needed to translate key documents and involve interpreters in communication with their outside lawyers. Other reasons for which I granted extensions were: to allow an addressee of the SO to restore and research historic data after replacement of its IT-system; to allow an addressee of the SO to cope with the departure of an in-house counsel previously in charge of the case; to take account of delays caused to certain addressees of the SO by a technical replacement of the access-to-file DVD (22).

20.	As a result of my decisions, the time limits for replying to the SO expired between late September 2011 and mid-November 2011.

21.	As mentioned above (23), the addressees of the SO were given the opportunity to submit additional written comments in February and March 2012, supplementing or modifying their first replies to the SO on the basis of their access to the Spanish documents.

22.

Certain addressees of the SO requested an extension of the deadline to reply to the SO until the completion of their examination of the Spanish documents (24). I rejected these requests for several reasons. First, at the time these requests were made, certain addressees had already submitted their replies to the SO; granting an extension to those addressees which had not yet submitted their replies would have raised concerns of unequal treatment. Second, Nexans had brought the issue of the Spanish documents to my attention late in the time period for the reply to the SO (25). Third, the rights of defence were fully safeguarded as, once they obtained access to the Spanish documents, the addressees of the SO were allowed to submit additional comments, including any modification of their first reply to the SO (26). Fourth, this approach had the advantage of limiting procedural delays caused by the additional access to the file, as it allowed the case team to start earlier its review of the replies to the SO. Moreover, the Spanish documents were not likely to lead to any radical change of the addressees’ defence; indeed, all the additional comments received were in the line of the arguments made by the addressees of the SO in their first replies to the SO. Finally, organizing access to the Spanish documents was likely to require some time, given the sizeable amount of those documents.

5. Use of languages

23.

Brugg, an undertaking based in the German-speaking Swiss canton of Aargau, asked whether it could respond in German to the SO, which it had received in English. DG Competition accepted Brugg’s request. In this context, I noted that DG Competition’s Manual of Procedures provides that undertakings located outside the EEA should preferably be addressed in a EU language they understand and that ‘[p]articular care should be taken when notifying decisions to Swiss undertakings, as one of three languages may be used, depending on the Canton in which the undertaking is established.’ (27). In view of this specific mention in the Manual of Procedures, I called DG Competition’s attention to the fact that any future decision should be addressed to Brugg in German.

6. Oral Hearing

24.	The oral hearing lasted 6 days, from 11 to 18 June 2012. All the addressees of the SO participated, except Furukawa (28).

7. Additional access to file after the oral hearing

a. Access to the replies of other parties to requests for information

25.

After the oral hearing, DG Competition conducted further fact-finding on issues of parental liability. In this context it addressed requests for information to: Prysmian and Goldman Sachs; Fujikura, Furukawa and Viscas; Mitsubishi, Showa and EXSYM. Within each group of entities, DG Competition granted the parties access to each other’s replies to the requests for information as well as the possibility of submitting written comments. In this context, DG Competition also granted Goldman Sachs access to the written submissions of Prysmian and the opportunity to comment on them further.

b. Additional access to replies to the SO

26.

In May 2013, Nexans reiterated its earlier request for access to potentially exculpatory evidence in the replies of the other parties to the SO (29). Following rejection of the request by DG Competition, Nexans referred the matter to me. Upon my intervention, DG Competition provided Nexans access to the non-confidential version of an annex to another addressee’s reply to the SO. This annex contained the sworn statement of an employee of that company, in which reference was made to contacts with Nexans. Following this access, I informed Nexans that I had no indication that there remained other information in the replies to the SO which had to be disclosed to it in accordance with the relevant case law (30).

27.	In May 2013, DG Competition also granted Goldman Sachs access to the supplementary comments made by Prysmian in March 2012 following access to the Spanish documents (31).

8. Letter of Facts

28.	In September 2013, DG Competition sent Letters of Facts to Fujikura, Furukawa, Goldman Sachs, Mitsubishi and Showa informing them of information and evidence it intended to rely on in the decision to establish parental liability, and set a two-week deadline for them to submit written comments.

29.

After being granted a three-day extension by DG Competition, Mitsubishi asked me for an additional nine-day period. I decided to extend the deadline by two days to take into account that the time period to reply to the Letter of Facts overlapped with the date of a state of play meeting of Mitsubishi with the Commission.

30.

In the reply to the Letter of Facts, Mitsubishi claimed that the time granted to respond to the Letter of Facts was, notwithstanding the extensions granted, insufficient for it to exercise its rights of defence effectively. Having reviewed Mitsubishi’s reply, I do not find any indication that Mitsubishi was unable effectively to exercise its rights of defence. On the contrary, Mitsubishi’s reply to the Letter of Facts appears to contain a detailed analysis of the evidence annexed to the Letter of Facts.

31.

In the reply to the Letter of Facts, Goldman Sachs claimed that its rights of defence had been infringed because it was only after the oral hearing, i.e. in May 2013, that the Commission provided it access to Prysmian’s supplementary comments of March 2012 on the Spanish documents (32). I do not consider that, as a result of obtaining access to Prysmian’s comments of March 2012 only after the oral hearing, Goldman Sachs was unable effectively to exercise its right to be heard. Goldman Sachs has had ample opportunity to submit written comments on Prysmian’s submissions during the proceedings. In particular, after the oral hearing Goldman Sachs made written submissions in June and September 2013.

III. THE DRAFT DECISION

32.

After having heard the addressees of the SO in writing and orally, the Commission decided to drop allegations against one party (33). With respect to three addressees of the SO, it decreased the duration of the infringement by approximately 1 year and 9 months, 1 year and 10 months, and 2 years respectively.

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

34.	Overall, I conclude that all parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case.

Brussels, 31 March 2014.

Wouter WILS

(1) Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 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) Nexans SA and Nexans France SAS (together ‘Nexans’).

(3) Prysmian S.p.A. and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia S.r.l. (together ‘Prysmian’); Pirelli & C. S.p.A.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(4) J-Power Systems Corporation; Hitachi Metals Ltd; Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

(5) VISCAS Corporation; Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd; Fujikura Ltd.

(6) ABB AB and ABB Ltd (together ‘ABB’).

(7) Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (together ‘Brugg’).

(8) Silec Cable, SAS and General Cable Corporation (together ‘Silec’); Safran SA.

(9) EXSYM Corporation; SWCC Showa Holdings Co. Ltd; Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd.

(10) LS Cable & System Ltd.

(11) Taihan Electric Wire Co., Ltd.

(12) nkt cables GmbH and NKT Holding A/S (together ‘NKT’).

(13) Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17).

(14) Case T-135/09 Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA v European Commission and Case T-140/09, Prysmian Spa and Prysmian Cavi e Systemi Energia Srl v European Commission [2012] ECR, not reported.

(15) Case C-37/13P Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA v European Commission (OJ C 101, 6.4.2013, p. 10).

(16) In view of certain technical problems, the access-to-file DVD was later replaced with a new DVD.

(17) Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 7).

(18) 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).

(19) Commission Notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6), paragraph 103.

(20) See Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of the hearing officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21). This decision has been repealed by Decision 2011/695/EU on 21 October 2011.

(21) See XIIIth Report on Competition Policy (1993), point 207.

(22) See footnote 16.

(23) See point 11.

(24) See points 9 and 10.

(25) Nexans brought the issue of the Spanish documents to my attention almost 3 months after it received access to the file.

(26) See point 11.

(27) See Antitrust Manual of Procedures, module 27, ‘Use of languages in antitrust proceedings’, p. 3/7, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/antitrust_manproc_3_2012_en.pdf

(28) […].

(29) See point 16.

(30) See, e.g. Case T-133/07 Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission [2011] ECR II-04219, paragraphs 41-44.

(31) See point 11.

(32) See point 27.

(33) See point 4.

17.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/10

Summary of Commission Decision

of 2 April 2014

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.39610 — Power Cables)

(notified under document C(2014) 2139 final)

(Only the English, French, German and Italian texts are authentic)

2014/C 319/06

On 2 April 2014, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. 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.

1. INTRODUCTION

(1)

On 2 April 2014, the European Commission adopted a decision against 26 legal entities for infringing Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Decision’). The decision concerns a cartel in the power cables sector in which the main producers of underground and submarine power cables shared markets and allocated customers between themselves on an almost worldwide scale.

2. CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1. The products concerned

(2)	The cartel arrangements covered all types of underground power cables of 110 kV and above and submarine power cables of 33 kV and above including all products, works and services sold to the customer related to a sale of power cables when such sales are part of a power cable project.

2.2. Procedure

(3)	Following the immunity application of ABB under the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission carried out inspections in January 2009. Subsequently, the Commission received leniency applications from Sumitomo, Hitachi and JPS and from Mitsubishi.

(4)

On 30 June 2011, the Commission adopted a statement of objections. All addressees submitted a reply to the statement of objections and, except for Furukawa, all addressees participated in an oral hearing that lasted from 11 to 18 June 2012. On 11 September 2013, the Commission sent Letters of Facts to Fujikura, Furukawa, Goldman Sachs, Mitsubishi and Showa with regard to information received after the statement of objections.

(5)	The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 17 March 2014 and 31 March 2014.

2.3. Summary of the infringement

(6)

The main producers participated in a network of multilateral and bilateral meetings and contacts aimed at restricting competition for underground and submarine power cable projects in specific territories by agreeing on market and customer allocation and thereby to distort the normal competitive process.

(7)

From February 1999 onwards, the main producers allocated projects according to the geographic region or customer. In addition, they exchanged information on prices and other commercially sensitive information in order to ensure that the designated power cable supplier or ‘allottee’ would make the lowest price while the other companies would either submit a higher offer or refrain from bidding or submit an offer that was unattractive to the customer. Reporting obligations were established to allow monitoring of the agreed allocations. Finally, additional practices were implemented to reinforce the cartel such as the collective refusal to supply accessories or technical assistance to certain competitors in order to ensure the agreed allocations.

(8)

The cartel had two main configurations:

(a)

On the one hand, it had as its objective the allocation of territories and customers. This configuration is referred to as the ‘A/R cartel configuration’. Pursuant to this configuration Japanese and Korean producers refrained from competing for projects in the European home territory while European producers would stay out of Japan and Korea. They also allocated projects in most of the rest of the world and made use of a quota arrangement for a certain period of time.

(b)	On the other hand, the ‘European cartel configuration’ involved the allocation of territories and customers by the European producers for projects inside the European home territory or allocated to the European producers.

(9)	To ensure the implementation of the cartel arrangements, the main producers held periodical meetings and had contacts by e-mail, telephone or fax

2.4. Addressees and duration of the infringement

(10)

The following legal entities are held liable, for the periods indicated, for a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the high voltage power cables sector:

(a) ABB AB: 1 April 2000 to 17 October 2008

(b) ABB Ltd (as parent of ABB AB): 1 April 2000 to 17 October 2008

(d) Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (as parent of Brugg Kabel AG): 14 December 2001 to 16 November 2006

(e) Nexans France SAS: 13 November 2000 to 28 January 2009

(f) Nexans SA (as parent of Nexans France SAS): 12 June 2001 to 28 January 2009

(g) nkt cables GmbH: 3 July 2002 to 17 February 2006

(h) NKT Holding A/S (as parent of nkt cables GmbH): 3 July 2002 to 17 February 2006

(i) Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l.: 18 February 1999 to 28 January 2009

(j) Pirelli & C. S.p.A. (as parent of Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l.): 18 February 1999 to 28 July 2005

(k) Prysmian S.p.A. (as parent of Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l.): 29 July 2005 to 28 January 2009

(l) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (as parent of Prysmian S.p.A): 29 July 2005 to 28 January 2009

(m) Safran SA (previously Sagem SA): 12 November 2001 to 29 November 2005

(n) Silec Cable, SAS: 30 November 2005 to 16 November 2006

(o) Safran SA (as parent of Silec Cable, SAS): 30 November 2005 to 21 December 2005

(p) General Cable Corporation (as parent of Silec Cable, SAS): 22 December 2005 to 16 November 2006

(q) Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd: 18 February 1999 to 30 September 2001 and 1 October 2001 to 10 April 2008 (joint venture period)

(r) Hitachi Metals, Ltd: 18 February 1999 to 30 September 2001 and 1 October 2001 to 10 April 2008 (joint venture period)

(s) J-Power Systems Corporation: 1 October 2001 to 10 April 2008

(t) Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd: 18 February 1999 to 30 September 2001 and 1 October 2001 to 28 January 2009 (joint venture period)

(u) Fujikura Ltd: 18 February 1999 to 30 September 2001 and 1 October 2001 to 28 January 2009 (joint venture period)

(v) VISCAS Corporation: 1 October 2001 to 28 January 2009

(w) SWCC SHOWA HOLDINGS CO., LTD.: 5 September 2001 to 30 June 2002 (for this period, SWCC SHOWA HOLDINGS CO., LTD is not liable for the European configuration) and 1 July 2002 to 28 January 2009 (joint venture period).

(x) Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd: 5 September 2001 to 30 June 2002 (for this period, Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd is not liable for the European configuration) and 1 July 2002 to 28 January 2009 (joint venture period)

(y) EXSYM Corporation: 1 July 2002 to 28 January 2009

(z) LS Cable & System Ltd: 15 November 2002 to 26 August 2005. LS Cable & System Ltd is not liable for the infringement as far as (extra) high voltage submarine cables are concerned.

(aa) Taihan Electric Wire Co., Ltd: 15 November 2002 to 26 August 2005. Taihan Electric Wire Co., Ltd is not liable for the infringement as far as (extra) high voltage submarine cables are concerned

2.5. Remedies

(11)	The decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2) and the 2006 Leniency Notice (3).

2.5.1. Basic amount of the fine

(12)	For a number of reasons explained in the Decision, the sales figures for the year 2004 were used in order to establish the relevant value of sales of the products described in Section 2.1 above.

(13)

As the sales of some undertakings in the EEA did not adequately reflect their weight in the infringement, the Commission applied point 18 of the Guidelines on fines and allocated the aggregated sales in the EEA related to the infringement to each undertaking in accordance with their respective shares of the sales to which the infringement relates at worldwide level, excluding the sales in the United States. The sales in the United States were excluded since this is the only territory for which the Commission possessed clear evidence that it was not covered by the almost worldwide cartel pursued in the Decision.

(14)

The joint venture parent companies were held liable for their direct participation in the cartel prior to the formation of the joint ventures and for their continued involvement through their respective joint ventures after their formations. In order to reflect each joint venture parent company’s economic strength and weight in the infringement during the period prior to the formation of the joint ventures, the sales determined for the joint venture were shared amongst the parent companies proportionally to the individual sales achieved by each parent company in the full business year prior to the formation of their joint venture.

(15)

Considering the nature of the infringements, their geographical scope and the combined market share of the producers the percentage for the variable amount of the fine and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) was set at 17 % of the values of sales of Sumitomo, Hitachi, JPS, Furukawa, Fujikura, VISCAS, Showa, Mitsubishi, EXSYM, LS Cable, Taihan and the companies held jointly and severally liable with either of them. This percentage was set at 19 % for Nexans, Prysmian, ABB, Brugg, Sagem/Silec, nkt and the companies held jointly and severally liable with them.

(16)

For each undertaking, the basis amount was multiplied by the number of years of participation in the infringement, rounded down monthly, which lead to the following multipliers for duration of participation:

ABB AB, ABB Ltd—

8,5

Brugg Kabel AG, Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding—

4,91

Nexans France SAS—

8,16

Nexans SA—

7,58

nkt cables GmbH, NKT Holding A/S—

3,58

Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l.—

9,91

Pirelli & C. S.p.A.—

6,41

Prysmian S.p.A.—

3,5

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.—

3,5

Safran SA— 4

Silec Cable, SAS—

0,91

Safran SA (parent)—

0,057

General Cable Corporation—

0,853

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd, for the period prior to the joint venture—

2,58

Hitachi Metals, Ltd, for the period prior to the joint venture—

2,58

J-Power Systems Corporation, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd, Hitachi Cable Ltd—

6,5

Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd, for the period prior to the joint venture—

2,58

Fujikura Ltd, for the period prior to the joint venture—

2,58

VISCAS Corporation, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd, Fujikura Ltd—

7,25

SWCC SHOWA HOLDINGS CO., LTD., for the period prior to the joint venture—

0,75

Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd, for the period prior to the joint venture—

0,75

EXSYM Corporation, SWCC SHOWA HOLDINGS CO., LTD., Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd—

6,5

LS Cable & System Ltd—

2,75

Taihan Electric Wire Co., Ltd—

2,75

2.5.2. Adjustments to the basic amount

(17)	On 24 January 2007, ABB Ltd was held liable for an infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty in the Commission Decision in the case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas Insulated Switchgear. Consequently, the basic amount of the fines for ABB and ABB Ltd was increased by a factor of 50 %.

(18)	Nexans, Pirelli/Prysmian, JPS, Sumitomo, Hitachi, Furukawa, Fujikura and VISCAS were considered to be the core group of participants of the cartel No mitigating factors are found for these addressees.

(19)	As the evidence shows that ABB, EXSYM, Sagem/Safran/Silec and Brugg had a level of involvement that distinguished them from the core group they were granted a reduction of 5 % of the fine on account of their substantially limited involvement in the infringement.

(20)	As the evidence shows that Mitsubishi and Showa (prior to the formation of EXSYM), LS Cable, Taihan and nkt had a level of involvement that qualified them as fringe players they were granted a reduction of 10 % of the fine on account of their substantially limited involvement in the infringement.

(21)	In addition, Mitsubishi and Showa, for the period before the formation of EXSYM, LS Cable and Taihan were granted an additional 1 % reduction for their lack of awareness of and liability for parts of the single and continuous infringement.

(22)	Mitsubishi was granted a reduction of 3 % of the fine set for the period of its own participation in the infringement on account of effective cooperation outside the scope of the Leniency Notice.

2.5.3. Application of the 10 % turnover limit

(23)	The final individual amounts of the fines (prior to the application of the 2006 Leniency Notice) are below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers for all undertakings.

2.5.4. Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice: reduction of fines

(24)	ABB was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed was reduced by 100 %.

(25)

The Commission was able to establish additional facts proving the existence of the cartel from 18 February 1999 to 1 March 2001 solely on the basis of evidence provided by JPS, Sumitomo and Hitachi. As a result, in line with point 26 of the Leniency Notice, this period was not taken into account for JPS, Sumitomo and Hitachi for the purpose of determining the fine.

(26)	For the remainder of their participation in the cartel JPS, Sumitomo and Hitachi were granted a 45 % reduction of the fines.

(27)	The Commission concluded that Mitsubishi did not qualify for a reduction of fines.

2.5.5. Inability to pay

(28)

One undertaking invoked its inability to pay under point 35 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines. The Commission considered this claim and carefully analysed the financial situation of the undertaking and the specific social and economic context. As a result of the analysis, the Commission rejected the claim.

3. FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

(29)

For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the power cables sector, the following fines were imposed:

ABB AB and ABB Ltd jointly and severally liable: EUR 0

Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding jointly and severally liable: EUR 8 490 000

Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA jointly and severally liable: EUR 65 767 000

Nexans France SAS: EUR 4 903 000

nkt cables GmbH and NKT Holding A/S jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 887 000

Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l, Prysmian S.p.A. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 37 303 000

Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. and Pirelli & C. S.p.A. jointly and severally liable: EUR 67 310 000

Safran SA: EUR 8 567 000

Silec Cable, SAS and General Cable Corporation jointly and severally liable: EUR 1 852 500

Silec Cable, SAS and Safran SA, jointly and severally liable: EUR 123 500

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd: EUR 2 630 000

Hitachi Metals, Ltd: EUR 2 346 000

J-Power Systems Corporation, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd and Hitachi Metals, Ltd jointly and severally liable: EUR 20 741 000

Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd: EUR 8 858 000

Fujikura Ltd: EUR 8 152 000

VISCAS Corporation, Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd and Fujikura Ltd jointly and severally liable: EUR 34 992 000

SWCC SHOWA HOLDINGS CO., LTD.: EUR 844 000.

Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd: EUR 750 000.

EXSYM Corporation, SWCC SHOWA HOLDINGS CO., LTD. and Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd jointly and severally liable: EUR 6 551 000

LS Cable & System Ltd: EUR 11 349 000.

Taihan Electric Wire Co., Ltd: EUR 6 223 000.

(1) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(2) OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

(3) OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17.

17.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/17

Call for applications for the selection of experts appointed in a personal capacity

2014/C 319/08

1. Background

By decision (1) of 7 December 2011, the Director-General has set up a group of experts for Agricultural Markets, in particular concerning aspects falling under the single CMO Regulation (E02730), sub-group olive oil, hereinafter referred to as ‘the group’.

The task of the group is to assist the Commission:

(a)	in the preparation of legislation or in policy definition in the area of olive oil chemistry and standardisation;

(b)	to reinforce the monitoring of compliance with chemical, organoleptic and authenticity requirements for olive oils;

(c)	to coordinate with Member States, exchange of views.

The group is composed by representatives of national administrations and experts appointed by the Commission in a personal capacity.

The Commission is therefore calling for applications with a view to appointing the members of the group in a personal capacity and establishing a reserve list.

2. Features of the group

2.1. Composition

Apart from the representatives of national administrations, the group should be composed of 10 scientists and other experts with competences related to olive oil chemistry. These members shall be appointed by the Commission in a personal capacity and shall deliver independent, excellent and technical advice to the Commission.

Its composition shall reflect a balance within the group in terms of areas of expertise, gender, and geographical origin.

The Commission will also establish a reserve list of candidates that could not be appointed as permanent members although they were considered suitable for a position in the group in the course of the selection procedure. A maximum of 5 experts will be selected for this list.

The reserve list can be used to appoint replacement for members of the group.

2.2. Term of appointment

Members of the group are appointed for a five-year renewable term of office. They shall remain in office until such time as their term of office ends.

The composition of the group and of the pool list may be reviewed every five years.

2.3. Independence and confidentiality

Members shall give the Commission an independent opinion free from outside influence and shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down by the Treaties and their implementing rules as well as with the Commission’s rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified information, laid down in the Annex to Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom (2).

They shall commit to act independently and in the public interest. They shall declare at each meeting any specific interest which may be considered prejudicial to their independence in relation to the items on the agenda.

2.4. Transparency

The names of members appointed in a personal capacity in the group shall be published in the Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities.

Personal data shall be collected, processed and published in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3).

2.5. Attendance at meetings

Applicants should be prepared to attend meetings systematically, to contribute actively to discussions in the group, to examine and draft documents and to act as ‘rapporteurs’ on an ad hoc basis.

The group shall normally meet on Commission premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established by it.

However, in parallel to physical meetings, electronic working groups could be established to enable more rapid progress in the work.

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the activities of the group shall be reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force at the Commission within the limits of the annual budget allocated by the responsible Commission services.

Members will receive no remuneration for their duties.

Most of the working documents will be in English and meetings will normally be conducted with interpretation in several EU official languages.

Applicants should take into account that meetings generally involve preparatory work.

3. Application procedure

Interested individuals are required to submit their application to the European Commission.

An application will be deemed admissible only if it includes the following documents:

1.	a covering letter in particular explaining the applicant’s motives for answering this call;

2.	a selection form (see the Annex) where applicants must describe their professional experience and expertise as against the criteria listed in this call;

3.	a curriculum vitae (preferably not exceeding three pages) where applicants must document their professional experience and expertise in full. All CVs should be submitted in the European format: http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/europass/home/vernav/Europass+Documents/Europass+CV.csp

Applications shall be completed in English or French.

4. The requirements

A. Eligibility criteria

1.	University level of education corresponding to a complete cycle of studies attested by a diploma of minimum three years, in the field of chemistry.

2.	A total period of at least five years, at the date of submitting the application, of technical and/or scientific professional experience in that field since obtaining the diploma mentioned above under point 1.

3.	Thorough knowledge of the English language (4);

4.	Applicants must be nationals of a Member State of the European Union, at the date of publication of this call.

5.	Applicants must present all the documentations referred to Chapter 3 ‘Application procedure’.

B. Selection criteria

For the selection based on qualifications, the following criteria will be taken into consideration:

—	proven experience and excellence in the area of chemistry and in olive oil chemistry in particular,

—	experience of working with legislation, policy, and standards in the field of olive oil chemistry,

—	professional experience in the authority/organisation for which the applicant has been working and the length of time he/she has worked there,

—	professional experience in other authorities/organisations, for which the applicant has worked in the past,

—	professional experience in general chemical laboratory techniques including mass spectroscopy, chromatographic separation, analytical techniques (GC, HPLC with various detectors, GC-MS, HPLC-MS), etc.,

—	professional experience in validation of analytical methods and interlaboratory comparisons,

—	specific projects and or tasks the applicant has been involved in, in an international context,

—	any tasks carried out by the applicant in the field of this call (teaching, participation in expert group, publications, etc.),

—	any major professional challenges foreseen in the near future in the olive oil area.

Personal data will be collected, processed and published in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

5. Selection procedure

The selection procedure will consist of four stages:

1.	verifying the admissibility and eligibility criteria;

2.	assessing applications against the selection criteria;

3.	establishing a list of most suitable applicants;

4.	appointing members of the group and establishing the pool list.

6. Submission of applications and closing date

Applications must be submitted not later than 31 October 2014 by 17:00 Brussels local time at the latest:

—

by registered post (date as postmarked) to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

Unit C.2 — Wine, spirits, horticultural products and specialised crops

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 130, 7/66

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

—	by e-mail, the date of the e-mail will be the date of sending. Applications by e-mail shall be sent to the following address: agri-c2@ec.europa.eu

The envelopes or the subject of the e-mail must specify: ‘Sub-group olive oil — call for applications’

The Commission reserves the right to disregard any application received after this date.

Hand-delivered applications will not be accepted.

For any further information please contact the functional mailbox:

agri-c2@ec.europa.eu

7. Appointment of the members

All candidates applying to this call for applications will be informed of the outcome of the selection process.

(1) Ares (2011) 1319969, 7.12.2011.

(2) Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure (OJ L 317, 3.12.2001, p. 1).

(3) OJ L 8, 12.1.2001. p. 1.

(4) ‘Thorough knowledge’ shall be intended as corresponding to level B2 or higher (i.e. levels C1 and C2) as specified in the Council of Europe reference document for the European Language Portfolio (‘Common European Framework of Reference: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment’). For more information please refer to http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf

ANNEX

Selection form (1)

Selection criteria	Your space (2)
Proven experience and excellence in the area of chemistry and in olive oil chemistry in particular
Experience of working with legislation, policy, and standards in the field of olive oil chemistry
Professional experience in the authority/organisation for which the applicant has been working and the length of time he/she has worked there
Professional experience in other authorities/organisations, for which the applicant has worked in the past
Professional experience in general chemical laboratory techniques including mass spectroscopy, chromatographic separation, analytical techniques (GC, HPLC with various detectors, GC-MS, HPLC-MS), etc.
Professional experience in validation of analytical methods and interlaboratory comparisons
Specific projects and or tasks the applicant has been involved in an international context
Any tasks carried out by the applicant in the field of this call (teaching, participation in expert group, publications, etc.).
Any major professional challenges foreseen in the near future in the olive oil area

Title: …

Surname: …

Date: …

Signature: …

(1) This form must be filled in, signed and returned with the application.

(2) In this column, please state your professional experience for each of the points set out in the ‘Selection Criteria’ column

17.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/23

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

2014/C 319/10

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

AMENDMENT APPLICATION

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2)

AMENDMENT APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 9

‘OSSAU-IRATY’

EC No: FR-PDO-0417-01096 — 15.2.2013

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1. Heading in the specification affected by the amendment

—

☐ Name of product

—

☒ Description of product

—

☐ Geographical area

—

☒ Proof of origin

—

☒ Method of production

—

☐ Link

—

☒ Labelling

—

☒ National requirements

—

☐ Other (to be specified)

2. Type of amendment(s)

—

☐ Amendment to Single Document or Summary Sheet

—

☒ Amendment to Specification of registered PDO or PGI for which neither the Single Document nor the Summary Sheet has been published.

—

☐ Amendment to Specification that requires no amendment to the published Single Document (Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

—

☐ Temporary amendment to Specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by the public authorities (Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

3. Amendment(s)

1. Description of product

A more precise cheese description is added: the cheese is produced only from non-standardised ewe’s milk; it is salted and matured, and cylindrical in shape.

The different cheese formats (mould size and weights) are clarified.

The following is added:

‘“Ossau-Iraty” may be sold in pre-packaged portions provided that each portion includes the rind that is characteristic of the PDO and a label with the information specified in point 8.’

This allows ‘Ossau-Iraty’ to be more clearly distinguished from other pressed cheeses produced in the region which may be sold without a label.

2. Evidence that the product originates from the geographical area

Paragraphs are added regarding maintaining product registers, product identification and compulsory declarations that operators must make. They define the information that must be registered, and the requirements for PDO operators to ensure traceability.

One paragraph regarding product identification is added:

‘Each cheese must be identifiable. This is ensured by adding an embossed label during cheese moulding. The label is scraped off cheeses that do not make the grade.’

Such identification is a means of distinguishing PDO-designated products from others as early as possible during cheese manufacturing, before labels are added.

3. Method of production

—

The means of maintaining grazing areas are specified: ‘The permitted forms of organic fertiliser are: compost, dung, slurry, liquid manure of agricultural origin, co-compost from green waste, sewage sludge, and dairy waste. In summer pasture areas, only animal waste from animals in pens may be spread on pasture land. The spreading of sewage sludge is permitted only under the following conditions: it must be ploughed into land immediately and a latency period of at least eight weeks must be observed after spreading; each lot must be analytically monitored. In grassland areas, the average annual level of mineral fertilisation is limited to 100 units of nitrogen, 60 units of phosphorus, and 100 units of potassium per hectare.’

These measures are intended to limit intensive and excessive fertilisation, which risks upsetting the balance for natural flora in grassland areas and summer pastures and polluting watercourses. The spreading of sewage sludge is tolerated only under certain conditions, as such products are liable to introduce undesirable substances into the soil, which risk filtrating into forage.

—	The terms ‘herd’ (all sheep present on a dairy holding) and ‘ewe’ (female sheep aged over 6 months on 1 November) are defined.

—	The following is added: ‘Genetically modified animals are prohibited’ in order to protect the local characteristics of breeds.

—

The following is added: ‘The milking period for the entire herd may not exceed 265 days per year, and milking is prohibited in the months of September and October.’

That measure ensures that milk production is seasonal and avoids any temptation to modify the seasonal pattern, fixing a compulsory ‘dry’ period which is required for ewes to be in good condition before lambing.

—	The following is added: ‘Over one milk production year (1 November to 31 October the following year), average milk production per herd may not exceed 300 litres per ewe and the average useful dry matter must be greater than 110 grams per litre of milk.’

Given that the production of ‘Ossau-Iraty’ naturally relies on an extensive supply chain, milk production per ewe is restricted to avoid overly intensive farming. Fixing a minimum level for useful dry matter (UDM) is intended to encourage breeders to select animals that produce quality milk, rather than animals that produce milk in great quantities.

— The following is added: ‘The cultivation of GMO crops on holdings is prohibited, covering all types of plant likely to be given as feed to animals on the holding and all crops liable to contaminate such plants.’

That requirement is intended to limit the risk of grass crops becoming contaminated, as genetically modified foodstuffs are prohibited for ruminants on holdings. The aim is to maintain the traditional feeding pattern associated with ‘Ossau-Iraty’ – a cheese with a strong reputation as a mountain product.

— As regards the animal feed, the following: ‘feeding is primarily based on grazing in the pastures where the animals are kept in the summer and lactation, forage grass, and secondary cereal crops’ is replaced by the following paragraphs:

—

‘Herd feeding patterns are based on the following:

—	feed must be sourced primarily from the identified geographical area. Feed (except grass) from areas other than that area is limited to an average of 280 kg of dry matter per ewe per milk production year;

—	ewes must be allowed to graze at least 240 days per milk production year;

—	during milking periods, on days when ewes do not graze, they must receive a daily ration of at least 600 grams of dry matter sourced from the identified geographical area, as defined in point 3 below.’

In order to strengthen the link with the geographical area, most of the feed consumed by the ewes comes from the identified geographical area. If there were not any measures setting a daily minimum, fodder from outside the geographical area could be used for a period of four months, or even longer during production peaks.

The introduction of a minimum grazing period strengthens the link between the product and its geographical area, in keeping with traditional, regional breeding methods. The local species are indeed particularly well adapted to grazing all year round, and they need exercise to stay healthy. The chosen grazing period — equivalent to eight months out of twelve — is compatible with mountain conditions.

— The following is added:

‘—

The basic feed ration comprises grass, forage comprising fresh, dry and dehydrated long blades of grass, straw and fermented grass-based fodder. The straw is not treated with ammonia. Farms may use the following as fresh fodder: fodder beet, turnips, radishes, fodder cabbages, rapeseed fodder, and grass. Properly harvested green fodder must arrive at farms in a fresh state. It must not be allowed to heat up before it is fed to livestock. Leftovers must be cleared out of feeding troughs before new green fodder is added.’

These measures ensure that the feed allows ewes to maintain their ruminant characteristics. The feeding regime is defined primarily by the composition of the basic ration, then by feed supplements and concentrates.

— The following is added:

‘—

Fermented fodder in herd feeding regimes during milking periods: until 31 January 2018, the portion of fermented fodder per ewe per day is limited to an average of 1,5 kg gross weight of maize silage and 1 kg gross weight of baled grass or grass silage; baled grass must comprise at least 70 % dry matter. As of 1 February 2018, silage feeding is prohibited and baled grass feed is permitted up to an average gross weight of 1 kg per ewe per day, provided that the baled grass comprises at least 70 % dry matter.’

The aim is to safeguard the milk’s characteristics. The use of fermented fodder, which is liable to lead to certain forms of microbial contamination, is therefore limited. The use of baled grass is an alternative to hay in the event of wet weather. The rule will require an implementation period to allow certain milk producers to introduce a feeding regime allowing for the prohibition of silage fodder during milking periods.

The following is added:

‘—

Producers are allowed to mix feed types on their holding under certain conditions:

—	feed types listed in point 5.2.6 may be mixed;

—	feed included in the basic ration may be mixed with feed listed in 5.2.6, provided that this takes place on the date of distribution;

—	it is prohibited to supply feed mixtures comprising feed in the basic ration and feed from the list of raw materials authorised as supplements to the basic ration, as defined in 5.2.6’.

This measure is intended to avoid the use of commercial full-feed products, since breeders do not know where they come from or often what is in them, and their use would sever the farming link with the geographical area.

— The following is added: ‘The portion of concentrates in a daily ration may not exceed an average of 800 grams of dry matter per ewe. Over the course of one year, the portion of concentrates may not exceed 150 kg of dry matter per ewe.’

This limit is intended to safeguard ewes’ specific ruminant characteristics. Coupled with the measures setting a minimum annual grazing period and a minimum proportion of feed to be sourced from the geographical area, this limit and, broadly speaking, the choices of feed to be given to animals strengthen the link with the geographical area. The two — annual and daily — thresholds take account of the huge seasonal variation in grass-fodder resources and the natural cycle of a ewe.

A list of authorised feedstuffs is also added, to prioritise the use of feed produced using farmers’ know-how. It also allows there to be precise information on the raw materials used to produce composite feed.

—	The following paragraph is added to help conserve the traditional style of animal feeding: ‘Only non-genetically modified versions of the following are permitted as feed for small animals on holdings: plant species, composite products and feed supplements.’

—

In order to support feeding programmes for young animals, as is the case for adult livestock, a positive list of authorised foodstuffs is added:

‘The following feeds may be given to lambs before weaning: dairy products, yeast, preservatives, carob pods. Only medicines with a curative effect are permitted.’

—	The following is added: ‘Production is prohibited in September and October.’

This confirms that ‘Ossau-Iraty’ cheese production is seasonal, following the milk production cycle, which runs from November/December to June/July, and sometimes August.

—	The phrase ‘used raw for farm cheeses’ is replaced by the following: ‘The milk may not be concentrated by partially removing the water in it before coagulation. Milk may be thermally treated when producing non-farm cheese.’

This confirms that milk must be in its natural state when used for cheese production, without any treatment other than thermal treatment — which is forbidden for the production of ‘farm’ cheese — in accordance with current practices.

— The stipulation: ‘After renneting the curd is separated, stirred, and scalded in a vat at between 36 and 44 °C’, is replaced by the following:

‘Cheese production includes only the following steps:

—	for farm cheese sifting over nettles is permitted;

—	the only additives permitted in the milk are non-genetically modified forms of: rennet, calcium chloride (max. 3 cm3 per 10 litres of milk), water, innocuous bacterial cultures, yeast, and moulds.

—

renneting takes place within 40 hours of the first milking for the production of farm cheese, and within 48 hours of the first milking for non-farm cheese. This takes place at a temperature of 28-35 °C, when a maximum of 3 cm3 of rennet per 10 litres of milk is added, with a standard rennet concentration of 520 mg of chymosin per litre. Drinking water may be added to dilute the rennet;

—	the following processes are to take place at a temperature of no more than 44 °C: curdling, cutting, stirring, heating and re-heating. The stirring process may not exceed one hour. The grains of curd are equal to or less than 1 cm3 in size;

—

the removal of lactose is permitted when producing non-farm cheese: the quantity of serum removed must be no more than 25 % of the volume of milk used for cheese production, and the quantity of drinking water added may not exceed 25 % of the volume of milk used for cheese production; the temperature of that water must be between 25 and 60 °C;

—	moulding is carried out in cloth-lined perforated moulds or micro-perforated moulds (25,5-26 cm in diameter and 9-12 cm in height, or smaller moulds 18-20 cm in diameter and 7-10 cm in height. Farm cheese may also be produced in moulds 24-28 cm in diameter and 9-15 cm in height);

—	in the pressing process, farm cheese is turned at least once;

—	demoulding takes place once the pH value of the cheese is no more than 5,5;

—

salting using dry salt or brine: dry salting takes place at an ambient temperature of no more than15 °C and the duration of the process may not exceed 24 hours per kilogram of cheese. The brine mixture comprises water and salt (with salt content of 330 grams/litre or less); the brine may contain acetic and/or lactic acid; its pH value must not exceed 5,5. Brine salting may not exceed 12 hours per kilogram of cheese. The temperature of the brine may not exceed 15 °C. It is permitted to filter the brine.’

As the description of stirring and scalding the curd in a vat is incomplete as a description of how to produce the product, each step in manufacturing the cheese, from the processing of the milk to salting, is clearly described. The target values for the time periods and temperatures to be observed are defined in accordance with the current practices. Furthermore, as the currently applicable Specification does not specify the conditions for lactose removal — a procedure used solely for production in a dairy, as it is adapted to mixtures of milk — parameters are set for that procedure in terms of the maximum quantity of serum to be removed, the maximum quantity of water to be added, and the temperature.

—	Moreover, the use of treatments and additives in cheese-making used to be subject to general rules. However, it has emerged that certain new techniques, including a number of procedures involving treatments and additives, could affect the properties of ‘Ossau-Iraty’.

It is therefore necessary to define current practices regarding the use of treatments and additives for milk and for the production of ‘Ossau-Iraty’ in the Specification in order to prevent future practices not covered by the rules from compromising the cheese’s characteristics.

The following is added:

‘The raw materials, partly finished products, curd, and fresh cheese may not be kept at a temperature below zero °C.

The technique of vacuum packaging is permitted, subject to compliance with the following conditions:

—	if fresh cheese is vacuum-packed, this must take place within 10 days of the completion of brine treatment or salting;

—	for the whole time that cheese is vacuum-packed, it must be stored at a temperature between 0 °C and 4 °C;

—	cheese may be stored only for a maximum period of 10 months and all cheese produced within one calendar year must be removed from its vacuum packaging by 20 December of that year at the latest;

—	when cheese is vacuum-packed, the maturing process counts as starting on the date when the cheese is removed from its vacuum packaging.’

Freezing is prohibited, as this process modifies the organoleptic properties of the cheese. The process of vacuum packaging allows the cheese maturing process and cheese sales to continue all year round, despite the seasonal nature of milk production and therefore of cheese production. The period of vacuum packaging counts as a waiting period before the cheese maturing process, as the vacuum-storage period does not count towards the time required for cheese maturing.

— The wording stating that: ‘the cheese is ripened in the PDO area for 90 days, which may be shortened to 60 days for small-format “Ossau-Iraty”’ is replaced by the following:

‘Cheese must be allowed to mature in the PDO area for at least 120 days for cheeses weighing 4-7 kg, and 80 days for cheeses weighing 2-3 kg. During the maturing process, the cheese must be stored at a temperature of 6-15 °C and the ambient humidity in the store room must be greater than 75 %.’

By extending the length of the maturing process, the cheese’s characteristics become more pronounced. Moreover, the conditions for the maturing process are defined in greater detail, in order to appropriately manage that procedure.

—	The following description of the traditional practice of handling the cheese is added: ‘During the maturing process, cheese is turned and brushed. The brushing procedure may use the following: water, salt, surface ripening cultures, and/or red chilli paste.’

—

In order to support such traditional practices, it is prohibited to apply one or more rind colouring agent(s) and natamycin (E235) to the cheese surface. The prohibition of polyvinyl acetate will require an implementation period of up to 1 November 2014 to allow all operators to implement alternative measures.

4. Specific labelling details

The new wording calls more clearly for compulsory product labelling and a specific character size.

There is no longer any requirement to include the ‘INAO’ logo on labels, but this is replaced by a requirement to include the EU’s ‘AOP’ (PDO) symbol and the option to include the wording ‘Appellation d’origine protégée’ (Protected designation of origin).

The possibility of adding the words ‘fermier’ (farm product) or ‘montagne’ (mountain product) to products and the conditions for such usage are no longer applicable as they are no longer appropriate.

5. National requirements

Addition of the key points to check with regard to the Specification.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (3)

‘OSSAU-IRATY’

EC No: FR-PDO-0417-01096 — 15.2.2013

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1. Name

‘Ossau-Iraty’

2. Member State or Third Country

France

3. Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1. Type of product

Class 1.3. Cheeses

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

‘Ossau-Iraty’ is a cheese produced only from non-standardised, renneted ewe’s milk. The cheese is salted and matured, cylindrical in shape, uncooked and slightly pressed, with a straight or slightly convex heel. The total dry extract of the cheese must comprise at least 50 % milk fat and the dry matter must be at least 58 grams per 100 grams of cheese. Farm ‘Ossau-Iraty’ is produced exclusively from raw milk.

Dimensions of moulds and weights of cheeses:

—	moulds 25,5 to 26 cm in diameter and 9-12 cm in height produce matured cheeses of 4-5 kg in weight;

—	moulds 18 to 20 cm in diameter and 7-10 cm in height produce matured cheeses of 2-3 kg in weight.

Farm ‘Ossau-Iraty’ may be produced in the aforementioned moulds, or for a larger-sized cheese, in moulds 24-28 cm in diameter and 9-15 cm in height for a cheese of 7 kg in weight.

The body of the cheese has a colour varying from ivory white to amber-cream, according to the maturing process. The cheese is smooth, firm and creamy, and it may contain a few small holes.

The rind is yellowy-orange to grey.

The maturing process lasts at least 80 days for cheeses weighing 2-3 kg, and 120 days for cheeses weighing 4-7 kg.

3.3. Raw materials (for processed products only)

‘Ossau-Iraty’ is produced only from milk from ewes of the following breeds: Basque-béarnaise, Manech black head and Manech red head.

Over one milk production year (1 November to 31 October of the following year), average milk production per herd may not exceed 300 litres per ewe. Milk production is seasonal: a herd may not be milked more than 265 days a year and milking is prohibited in September and October.

3.4. Feed (for products of animal origin only)

Animal feed must be sourced primarily from the identified geographical area. The total feed (except grass) sourced from areas other than the identified geographical area is limited to an average of 280 kg of dry matter per ewe per milk production year.

The basic feed ration comprises grass, forage comprising fresh, dry and dehydrated long blades of grass, straw and fermented grass-based fodder. Herds must be fed on the basis of a positive list of authorised raw materials, covering both their basic ration and feed supplements. Herds are fed on non-transgenic products.

Ewes must be allowed to graze at least 240 days per year. During milking periods, on days when ewes do not graze, they must receive a daily ration of at least 600 grams of dry matter sourced from the identified geographical area.

As regards herd feeding during milking periods:

—	until 31 January 2018, the portion of fermented fodder per ewe per day is limited to an average of 1,5 kg gross weight of maize silage and 1 kg gross weight of baled grass or grass silage;

—	as of 1 February 2018, the use of silage is prohibited and baled grass feed is permitted up to an average gross weight of 1 kg per ewe per day.

Those two provisions will apply on the condition that the baled grass comprises at least 70 % dry matter.

The portion of feed concentrates in a daily ration may not exceed an average of 800 grams of dry matter per ewe. Over the course of one milking year, the portion of feed concentrates may not exceed 150 kg of dry matter per ewe.

Transgenic crops are prohibited in all areas of farms producing milk intended for processing into the PDO product. This prohibition applies to all types of plant likely to be given as feed to animals on the holding and all crops liable to contaminate such plants.

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

The sheep’s milk must be produced and the cheese produced and matured within the geographical area.

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

‘Ossau-Iraty’ may be sold in pre-packed portions provided that each portion includes the rind that is characteristic of the PDO and a label with the information specified in point 3.7 below.

3.7. Specific rules concerning labelling

Irrespective of the regulatory information requirements applicable to all cheeses, each cheese label must include the name of the PDO in characters measuring at least two thirds of the size of the largest lettering on the label.

The EU’s ‘AOP’ (PDO) symbol must be included on the cheese labels.

Labels may also include the words ‘Appellation d’origine protégée’ (Protected designation of origin).

4. Concise definition of the geographical area

The geographical area is made up of municipalities or parts of municipalities

—

in the department of Pyrénées-Atlantiques:

—

all municipalities within the cantons of Accous, Anglet, Aramits, Arudy, Biarritz, Bidache, Espelette, Hasparren, Hendaye, Iholdy, Laruns, Lasseube, Mauléon-Licharre, Navarrenx, Nay, Oloron, Saint-Etienne-de-Baïgorry, Saint-Jean-de-Luz, Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port, Saint-Palais, Sauveterre-de-Béarn, Tardets-Sorholus, and Ustaritz;

—

the municipalities of Aressy, Assat, Auterrive, Ayherre, Bellocq, Bérenx, Bosdarros, Briscous, Carresse-Cassaber, Castagnède, Castetner, Cuqueron, Escos, Gan, Gelos, Hours, Isturits, Jurançon, Laà-Mondrans, La-Bastide-Clairence, Labastide-Villefranche, Labatmale, Lahonce, Lahourcade, Lanneplaà, Léren, Loubieng, Lucgarier, Lucq-de-Béarn, Mazères-Lezons, Meillon, Monein, Mouguerre, Mourenx, Narcastet, Noguères, Ozenx-Montestrucq, Parbayse, Rontignon, Saint-Dos, Saint-Faust, Saint-Pé-de-Léren, Saint-Pierre-d’Irube, Salies-de-Béarn, Salles-Mongiscard, Sarpourenx, Sauvelade, Uzos, Vielleségure, and Villefranque;

—

parts of the following municipalities that fall within the region: Abos, Abidos, Arbus, Argagnon, Artigueloutan, Artiguelouve, Barzun, Bayonne, Bésingrand, Biron, Bizanos, Castétis, Denguin, Espoey, Gomer, Idron, Lacq, Labastide-Cézeracq, Lagor, Lahontan, Laroin, Lée, Lescar, Livron, Lons, Maslacq, Mont, Nousty, Orthez, Os-Marsillon, Ousse, Pardies, Pau, Pontacq, Siros, Soumoulou, Tarsacq, Urcuit, and Urt.

For the aforementioned municipalities, maps are available in the respective municipal offices.

Those municipalities are located along the left bank of the river Ousse, and then of the Gave de Pau, the Gaves réunis and, after their confluence, the Adour, as well as part of the municipality of Lons, located on the right bank of the Gave de Pau.

—	in the department of Hautes-Pyrénées, bordering the department of the Pyrénées-Atlantiques: Arbéost, Arrens-Marsous, and Ferrières.

5. Link with the geographical area

5.1. Specificity of the geographical area

The PDO area includes the mountains and foothills of the Basque and Béarn regions.

The natural conditions of the geographical area, its coastal climate with a regular and significant level of rainfall (at least 1 200 mm/yr and up to 1 800 mm/yr), and the area’s relatively narrow temperature range promote the growth of pasture and therefore the breeding of dairy sheep. Likewise, the relief of the land, the hills, the low and mid-range mountains, as well as the altitude, have encouraged the development of extensive livestock farming.

Traditional breeds of ewe are used for milk production. The breeds used are the local Manech black head, Manech red head, and Basque-béarnaise breeds, which are particularly well adapted to the conditions of the geographical area: grass and hay-based feed and a very rainy climate, which they tolerate on account of their ‘waterproof’ woolly fleece. These sheep graze throughout the year, even in winter, except on snowy days or in extreme conditions; they are adapted to seasonal migration and this practice is applied to three quarters of all herds. These local breeds only produce milk in winter, spring, and at the start of summer.

Milking procedures are adapted to this seasonal production – milking and production are prohibited in September and October.

The sheep’s milk in the geographical area is especially rich, so the production procedure guarantees that the average useful dry matter (fat content and protein content) is more than 110 grams per litre of milk.

Practices and production methods are adapted to the richness of the milk. For this reason, when the cheese is put in the cellar, it may undergo changes such as lipolysis and proteolysis during the maturing process.

Maturing practices used by operators (turning, brushing, ban on the use of all anti-fungal substances) help to ensure that the surface flora are useful flora that guarantee the development of the right flavours.

5.2. Specificity of the product

‘Ossau-Iraty’ is a lightly-pressed ewe’s milk cheese of the Tomme type, with a straight or slightly convex heel. Its rind is hard, a few millimetres thick, and its colour varies between yellowy-orange and grey. An ‘Ossau-Iraty’ cheese weighs at least 2 kilograms, which means that it takes a long time to mature, from 80 to 120 days according to size.

The body of the cheese varies from ivory-white to amber-cream, according to the maturing process. The cheese has a smooth, firm, melt-in-the-mouth texture which ranges from creamy to hard. It may contain a few small eyes (holes).

It has a subtle smell, which sometimes contains notes of flowers or fruit. It has an intense taste that is well-balanced in terms of acidity and fat content; the cheese is salty, but not excessively so, and its flavour is often nutty or fruity.

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 geographical area comprises the mountains and foothills of the Basque and Béarn regions, which are primarily covered by natural and temporary grasslands; such pastures may be in the mountains, where most herds are taken in the summer, or on holdings where farmers primarily produce grass fodder for grazing and hay production.

This vegetation enables the fodder to be produced in the geographical area (primarily hay and second-growth crops with grazing on mixed pastures).

These resources are put to good use in the rearing of ewes of local breeds only (Manech black head, Manech red head, and Basque-béarnaise).

The use of such local breeds, feeding based on grass and hay and rearing where intensive farming is limited guarantee that the milk produced is well suited to cheese-making.

Ewe’s cheese has been produced in the western area of the Pyrenees since at least the Middle Ages. Sharecropping contracts from the 14th century and notarial documents from the early 15th century confirm that ewe’s cheese was produced in the region.

The difficult transport conditions between the high-altitude, summer pastures and the valleys quickly led to farmers processing milk on-the-spot so as to produce cheese that could be easily transported down into the valleys to be sold.

‘Ossau-Iraty’ belongs to a category of cheeses that are ‘pressed and uncooked’; weighing several kilograms, and with its pressed form, its shape, and its extensive maturing process, ‘Ossau-Iraty’ develops a relatively hard rind, thus fulfilling the criteria of being easily transportable. Given that the cheese can be stored for long periods, this guaranteed farmers and their families a protein-rich foodstuff for the whole year.

Even though transportation is easier nowadays, the tradition of an extensive maturing process has been retained. The characteristics of the cheese, and its varied flavours, are obtained from the combination of adapted production techniques, in particular from the long cheese-maturing process.

Reference to publication of the specification

(Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (4))

https://www.inao.gouv.fr/fichier/CDCOssau-Iraty.pdf

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

(2) OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(3) Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(4) See footnote 3.

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 319

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 57 17 September 2014

Notice No	Contents	page
	II Information
	INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2014/C 319/01	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7300 — COFCO/Noble Agri) ( 1 )	1

	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2014/C 319/02	Euro exchange rates	2

2014/C 319/03	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(1) Power Cables — Rapporteur: Denmark	3

2014/C 319/04	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 31 March 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39610(2) Power Cables — Rapporteur: Denmark	4

2014/C 319/05	Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Power Cables (AT.39610)	5

2014/C 319/06	Summary of Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final)	10

	Court of Auditors
2014/C 319/07	Special Report No 10/2014 The effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture	16

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2949
JPY	Japanese yen	138,67
DKK	Danish krone	7,4448
GBP	Pound sterling	0,79920
SEK	Swedish krona	9,2376
CHF	Swiss franc	1,2085
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	8,2790
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	27,555
HUF	Hungarian forint	314,35
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
PLN	Polish zloty	4,1956
RON	Romanian leu	4,4145
TRY	Turkish lira	2,8635
AUD	Australian dollar	1,4340
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4297
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	10,0370
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,5866
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6326
KRW	South Korean won	1 341,66
ZAR	South African rand	14,1811
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,9578
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,6200
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	15 483,02
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,1745
PHP	Philippine peso	57,327
RUB	Russian rouble	50,0160
THB	Thai baht	41,748
BRL	Brazilian real	3,0322
MXN	Mexican peso	17,1260
INR	Indian rupee	79,0867

	V Announcements
	ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
	European Commission
2014/C 319/08	Call for applications for the selection of experts appointed in a personal capacity	17

	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY
	European Commission
2014/C 319/09	Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7392 — Advent International / Corialis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	22

	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2014/C 319/10	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	23