22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7774 — Antofagasta/Barrick/Zaldivar)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/01)

On 15 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7774. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7767 — FIS/Sungard)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/02)

On 16 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7767. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7734 — Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky Aircraft)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/03)

On 15 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7734. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7765 — Carlyle/Veritas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/04)

On 12 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7765. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 October 2015

(2015/C 350/05)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1354
JPY	Japanese yen	136,30
DKK	Danish krone	7,4596
GBP	Pound sterling	0,73490
SEK	Swedish krona	9,4219
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0864
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,2625
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	27,079
HUF	Hungarian forint	311,25
PLN	Polish zloty	4,2757
RON	Romanian leu	4,4315
TRY	Turkish lira	3,2989
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5707
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4764
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,7995
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6869
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,5815
KRW	South Korean won	1 292,65
ZAR	South African rand	15,2444
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,2088
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,6165
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	15 610,11
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8669
PHP	Philippine peso	52,730
RUB	Russian rouble	71,3405
THB	Thai baht	40,375
BRL	Brazilian real	4,4577
MXN	Mexican peso	18,9044
INR	Indian rupee	73,9444

---

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

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 350/06)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

Date and time of closure	19.9.2015
Duration	19.9-31.12.2015
Member State	Belgium
Stock or Group of stocks	ANF/8ABDE.
Species	Anglerfish (Lophiidae)
Zone	VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe
Type(s) of fishing vessels	—
Reference number	49/TQ104

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 350/07)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

Date and time of closure	19.9.2015
Duration	19.9-31.12.2015
Member State	Belgium
Stock or Group of stocks	HKE/8ABDE.
Species	Hake (Merluccius merluccius)
Zone	VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe
Type(s) of fishing vessels	—
Reference number	48/TQ104

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-17/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)

(2015/C 350/08)

In Case E-17/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force national rules, such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of that Article, including the applicability of Article 63(2) of the Health Act in those respects, which require an authorised ‘Dentist’ to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force Article 63 of the Health Act, which requires that a person holding the qualification referred to in German as ‘Dentist’ has to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (‘Zahnarzt’).

2.	Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-20/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents)

(2015/C 350/09)

In Case E-20/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make, as such and within the time prescribed, part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 17/2011 of 1 April 2011, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol l thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 17/2011 of 1 April 2011.

2.	Orders Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-21/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/30/EU on product information of energy consumption)

(2015/C 350/10)

In Case E-21/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — application for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

2.	Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 April 2015

in Case E-16/14

Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV

(Veterinary medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Concept of ‘first authorisation to place a product on the market’ in the European Economic Area — Active ingredient)

(2015/C 350/11)

In Case E-16/14, Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court) concerning the interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 April 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

Under Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, a supplementary protection certificate for a veterinary medicinal product may be granted in an EEA State on the basis of a marketing authorisation granted in that State pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure set out in Title III of Directive 2001/82/EC, including the procedure for authorisation in exceptional circumstances under Article 26(3) of that directive. Such a marketing authorisation constitutes a valid authorisation and, where appropriate, may also constitute the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a veterinary medicinal product within the meaning of Article 3(b) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. Permissions granted on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 2001/82/EC do not constitute a marketing authorisation within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. That derogating provision strictly limits the use of the measures permitted under it, stating that it applies only in the event of serious epizootic diseases, in the absence of suitable medicinal products and after informing the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the detailed conditions of use. The determination of whether ‘special approval exemptions’ or ‘AR 16 licences’, granted respectively by Norwegian and Irish authorities between 2003 and 2011, and the provisional marketing authorisation granted in the United Kingdom in 2005 were issued pursuant to national provisions implementing the first paragraph of Article 8 or Article 26(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC depends essentially on the assessment of the facts in the national proceedings, which is a matter for the national court.

2.

Pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, the scope of protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate extends to a specific strain of a virus covered by the basic patent, but not referred to in the marketing authorisation for a virus vaccine relied on for the purposes of Article 3(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, only if the specific strain constitutes the same active ingredient as the authorised medicinal product and has therapeutic effects falling within the therapeutic indications for which the marketing authorisation was granted. It is not relevant whether a medicinal product based on such other strain would require a separate marketing authorisation. The appreciation of such elements is a matter of fact which is to be determined by the national court. A supplementary protection certificate is invalid to the extent it is granted a wider scope than that set out in the relevant marketing authorisation.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.7766 — HNA Group/Aguila)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/12)

1.

On 15 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which HNA Group Co., Ltd (‘HNA Group’, China) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Aguila 2 SA, the holding company of the Swissport group of companies (together with its subsidiaries, ‘Swissport’, Luxembourg), by way of purchase of securities.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — HNA Group: conglomerate encompassing core divisions of aviation, holdings, capital, tourism and logistics. Through its HNA Aviation division, HNA Group manages aviation related enterprises, with a focus on China and the Asia region. HNA Group, through its controlled airlines, is active at a number of airports in the EEA, — Swissport is a provider of airport ground handling, cargo handling, and related services, to airlines in Europe and abroad.

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

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7766 — HNA Group/Aguila, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/10

---

Publication of an 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

(2015/C 350/13)

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

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

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

‘FRANKFURTER GRÜNE SOßE’/‘FRANKFURTER GRIE SOß’

EC No: DE-PGI-0005-0884-13.07.2011

PGI ( X ) PDO ( )

1.   Name

‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Germany

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

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

‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ is a fresh herbal blend, consisting of the fresh leaves, stems and buds of seven herbs: Borago officinalis (borage), Anthriscus cerefolium var. sativus (chervil), Lepidium sativum (cress), Petroselinum crispum (parsley), Sanguisorba minor (salad burnet), Rumex acetosa (common sorrel) and Allium schoenoprasum (chives).

It is a natural product which, in terms of its individual ingredients, can vary in size, outer appearance, structure and colour depending on the time of year and consequently on the intensity of light exposure, temperature and other natural weather-related factors

The ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ fresh herbal blend must only contain fresh leaves, stems and buds.

Petroselinum crispum, Borago officinalis, Rumex acetosa and Anthriscus cerefolium var. sativus are the main ingredients in the blend, accounting for approximately 75 % of the overall weight. The fresh leaves, stems and buds of Allium schoenoprasum, Sanguisorba minor and Lepidium sativum account for approximately 25 % of the overall weight. Depending on the time of year and the naturally varying biological properties of each species, the amount of each individual herb in the fresh herbal blend as a share of the overall weight may differ. No one herb may account for more than 30 % by weight of the blend. Furthermore, Petroselinum crispum, Borago officinalis, Rumex acetosa and Anthriscus cerefolium var. sativus should not, individually, account for less than approximately 8 % by weight of the blend. Allium schoenoprasum, Sanguisorba minor and Lepidium sativum, which at certain times of year can have a particularly intense flavour, should not account for less than 3 % of the blend.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

—

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

—

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

The seven types of herb used to make ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ (whether grown outdoors or under cover) must be cultivated in the identified geographical area. Likewise, the fresh leaves, stems and buds must be harvested there. Petroselinum crispum may temporarily be sourced from horticultural production outside the identified geographical area (e.g. in the event of extraordinary and temporary fluctuations in availability owing to harvest losses caused by the weather conditions in the geographical area). In such cases, it must be ensured that the herbs are fresh and can be processed into bundles in the geographical area no later than 36 hours after harvest.

The inclusion of Petroselinum crispum up to 36 hours after harvest is only possible due to the particularly well-developed technical infrastructure in the geographical area (international airport and unbroken cold chain) and the specific characteristics of this herb. In order to be used, the other herbs may not be sourced from horticultural production occurring outside of the geographical area. They must be cultivated in the geographical area.

The seven individual herbs comprising ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ must be made into a blend and packed into bundles in the identified geographical area. Furthermore, this may only be done by hand.

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

Carried out by hand using a traditional method, the leaves and stems of the individual ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ herbs are layered on top of and into one another by means of a parallel arrangement which specially protects the leaves, then rolled together, and wrapped in special opaque paper which is water-resistant on the inside. The bundles are produced whilst grouping together the herbs and carefully determining the respective blend ratio.

‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ must not be layered or bundled by means of an automated or mechanised process carried out by a packaging machine or similar, as this has a damaging effect on the herbal aroma. Manually layering the individual, uncut leaves, stems and buds of each herb in series and on top of one another, which is a particularly gentle process — resembling work in the craft industry — is the only way to retain the special aromas of each fresh herb until they are processed for consumption, allowing the typical, unique flavour together with the special consistency of the fresh ingredients to be produced when preparing them for consumption as a blend of chopped leaves.

‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ is sold as a traditional fresh blend of whole herbs, weighing a minimum of 250 g in total. These ‘250 g bundles’ are how the product has been traditionally presented for sale to final consumers in the Frankfurt region. The product is also sold in larger bundles (e.g. 1 kg, 5 kg) for large-scale consumers

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

The name Frankfurter Grüne Soße or Frankfurter Grie Soß and the names of the seven herbs must be printed in green on the outside of the bundle, on the special paper referred to under point 3.6 The sentence frische Kräuterkomposition zur Zugbereitung der ‘Grünen Soße’ (fresh blend of herbs for preparing green sauce) must be clearly legible and printed below.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

The geographical area comprises the city of Frankfurt am Main and the following towns and municipalities immediately bordering the city: Oberursel, Bad Homburg, Karben, Bad Vilbel, Niederdorfelden, Maintal, Offenbach am Main, Neu-Isenburg, Mörfelden-Walldorf, Rüsselsheim, Raunheim, Kelsterbach, Hattersheim, Kriftel, Hofheim, Kelkheim, Liederbach, Sulzbach, Schwalbach, Eschborn and Steinbach.

5.   Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

Based on a very old tradition of small-scale horticulture in Frankfurt, first mentioned in official records in 1215 and caused by the political boundaries with the surrounding area, larger farms in the area around the city were progressively supplanted over the centuries. Local rules on inheritance meant that land was divided into smaller and smaller parcels. Over the centuries, a special type of herb cultivation developed on these parcels — some of which were very small — involving varieties and species (such as salad burnet) which are rarely grown outside Frankfurt.

Notably, the special diet of the traditionally large Jewish population of Frankfurt meant that at the latest by the end of the 19th century, fresh herbs came to be eaten and consequently grown there.

Another specific characteristic is the special know-how of herb growers in Frankfurt, as only they understand how to balance the individual and changing properties and ingredients in the blend (fresh herb bundles) so that consumers experience a harmonious taste sensation. Important aspects of the traditional product include the effects of seasonal changes and different growing conditions, varying availability of individual herbs grown outdoors or under cover, and their colour, intensity of flavour and aromas during the latter processing stages (impact on consistency).

5.2.   Specificity of the product

‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ is a fresh herbal speciality which is well-known and popular amongst consumers in the geographical area. It is an important basis for various different dishes and is consequently held in high esteem.

Developments between the 1920s and 1950s led to ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ becoming permanently established as a separate name for the fresh herbal blend, distinct from Grüne Soße, which is the name for the finished dish. This was primarily due to the fact that the terms ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ first began to be used consistently to refer to the herb bundles at that time.

From then on, as sales of the herb bundles began to increase in the surrounding area, ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ was used increasingly to designate the fresh herbal blend which formed the basis for various dishes, thereby also distinguishing it from the Kasseler Grüne Soße fresh herbal blend (made from other herbs) which could also be found on the market. Over the course of generations, ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ has also become established as a regional product, shaping the identity of the geographical area socially and culturally in various ways. The special knowledge developed by herb gardeners regarding how to grow and harvest the individual herbs and the unique know-how that has evolved from this regarding how to create a particularly harmonious blend of the seven herbs, has developed in several families over generations, as proved by many exhibitions and celebrated in the form of monuments (the Grüne Soße monument), museums (the Oberräder gardening museum) and a dedicated cultural festival (the Grüne Soße Festival).

For generations, much of the population of Frankfurt has regarded the local fresh herbal speciality ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ as contributing significantly to their identity. This is demonstrated, e.g. by the fact that ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’, which is produced by hand in the geographical area at close proximity to consumers, is not only presented in a consistently positive light in numerous newspaper articles and on the television but also on the internet. Moreover, it is distinctly ingrained in shared local beliefs and attitudes. Examples attesting to the significance of the fresh herbal blend include the novel Die abenteuerliche Reise der sieben Kräuter by Horst Nopens, the Frankfurt Adult Education Centre’s publication Des war die Zeit, various television features on the public regional television channel HR, and different publications by artists, cultural professionals and the City of Frankfurt on the topic: Sieben Kräuter müssen es sein — Die Frankfurter Grüne Soße (only seven herbs — Frankfurt green sauce).

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)

In addition to being the area where the herbs have been cultivated for generations on small-scale holdings, the geographical area is also where ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ is primarily sold and consumed. The long standing interplay between herb gardeners on the one hand and consumers (private consumers and the food service sector) on the other has given rise to a certain perception as to what makes ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ distinctive. This special knowledge was acquired exclusively by Frankfurt’s herb gardeners – knowledge which has been maintained to this day and which can be found nowhere else.

This expertise and know-how concerning how and when to proceed with which aspects of the harvesting and composition of the product, and the special nature — particularly the aroma, colour and taste — of the individual herbs corresponding to the specific characteristics of the geographical area (in accordance with point 5.1) and the specific harmonious blend of each herb within the bundle (in accordance with point 3.5) has meant that local production of the fresh herbal blend is seen as a cultural asset in the geographical area and will be passed on to future generations. As a fresh herbal blend, ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ is a precious cultural asset which is important to preserve.

Together with the long tradition of cultivating herbs for the ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ which developed as a result of the location of the Frankfurt region and demand from that region, the name Grüne Soße (green sauce) has become firmly established in local cuisine.

The main characteristic of the ‘Frankfurter Grüne Soße’/‘Frankfurter Grie Soß’ fresh herbal blend is that to date, all households and food industry professionals have their own recipes for creating the finished dish, Grüne Soße, using the herbs.

Reference to publication of the specification

(Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (3))

https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/geo/detail.pdfdownload/41038

---

(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)  See footnote 2.

---

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/14

---

Corrigendum to Call for proposals 2016 — EAC/A04/2015 — Erasmus+ programme

( Official Journal of the European Union C 347 of 20 October 2015 )

(2015/C 350/14)

On page 9, point 5 ‘Deadline for the submission of applications’ has been amended as follows, as regards Key Action 2 — Strategic partnerships:

---