30.8.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/2

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 August 2017

(2017/C 286/02)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2048
JPY	Japanese yen	130,86
DKK	Danish krone	7,4393
GBP	Pound sterling	0,92965
SEK	Swedish krona	9,5363
CHF	Swiss franc	1,1386
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,2915
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	26,142
HUF	Hungarian forint	305,32
PLN	Polish zloty	4,2676
RON	Romanian leu	4,5968
TRY	Turkish lira	4,1470
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5111
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5037
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,4268
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6535
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6283
KRW	South Korean won	1 353,80
ZAR	South African rand	15,6323
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,9467
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,4155
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 085,28
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	5,1409
PHP	Philippine peso	61,485
RUB	Russian rouble	70,7954
THB	Thai baht	39,963
BRL	Brazilian real	3,8106
MXN	Mexican peso	21,5204
INR	Indian rupee	77,1340

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

30.8.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/4

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case M.8228 — Facebook/WhatsApp

(2017/C 286/05)

(1)

The present report concerns a draft decision (the ‘Draft Decision’) for adoption under Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (the ‘Merger Regulation’). The Draft Decision concludes in essence that, by supplying ‘at least negligently’, in the context of Case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp, incorrect or misleading information in (i) the notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (the ‘Notification’) and (ii) a response to a request for information under Article 11(2) of that regulation, Facebook Inc. infringed, in particular, Article 14(1)(a) and (b) respectively of the Merger Regulation. The Draft Decision is addressed to Facebook Inc. and Facebook Ireland Limited (together, ‘Facebook’).

(2)

Case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp concerned a proposed concentration (the ‘Transaction’) whereby Facebook Inc. would acquire sole control over WhatsApp Inc. (‘WhatsApp’). By decision dated 3 October 2014, the Commission authorised this transaction pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. The Transaction was closed on 6 October 2014.

(3)	On 30 June 2016, Facebook Inc. submitted to the Commission a paper that referred to certain planned product improvements stated to rely ‘on a form of user matching between Facebook and WhatsApp that was not widely available in 2014’.

(4)

On 28 July 2016, the Commission requested information from Facebook and WhatsApp by way of decision pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation. Among other things, the recitals to this decision indicated that the Commission was concerned that Facebook Inc. might have supplied, intentionally or negligently, incorrect or misleading information in the Notification and in response to a request for information, dated 18 September 2014, regarding the possibilities of user matching between Facebook and WhatsApp. Facebook responded to this request for information by letter dated 3 August 2016, supplemented by the provision of internal documents on 8 and 12 August 2016.

(5)	On 11 August 2016, the Commission addressed to Facebook a second request for information pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation, to which Facebook responded on 16 August 2016.

(6)	On 7 September 2016, Facebook submitted a paper to the Commission that summarised Facebook’s previous submissions and set out Facebook’s position on whether it had provided misleading information to the Commission.

(7)	Facebook responded on 19 and 24 October 2016 to a third request for information, dated 3 October 2016.

(8)

By means of a letter dated 29 September 2016 and a state-of-play meeting held on 15 December 2016, the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’) kept Facebook informed of its ongoing investigation, for which a new case file (M.8228) had been created, containing correspondence in the context of Case M.7217 between (i) the Commission’s services and (ii) Facebook and/or WhatsApp.

(9)

On 20 December 2016, the Commission addressed a statement of objections to Facebook (the ‘SO’). In the SO, the Commission expressed its preliminary assessment that in Case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp, Facebook Inc. intentionally or at least negligently supplied incorrect or misleading information in (i) its notification submitted pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation and (ii) a response dated 23 September 2014 to a request for information made on 18 September 2014 pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation. The SO also expressed the Commission’s preliminary view that fines ought to be imposed on Facebook Inc. in accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Merger Regulation.

(10)	At Facebook’s request, DG Competition twice extended the period for responding to the SO.

(11)

On 14 March 2017, Facebook submitted its written comments on the SO. These comments were submitted in the context of a cooperation process and contingent upon certain conditions set out in the comments themselves. In its written comments, Facebook acknowledged that it had, in the course of Case M.7217, provided to the Commission information that was incorrect or misleading and that its conduct was negligent. In its written comments, Facebook also indicated its intention not to seek an oral hearing or access to the Commission’s file.

(12)	The Draft Decision indicates, among other things, that the cooperative behaviour shown by Facebook in the course of Case M.8228 can be considered as a mitigating factor in the determination of the amount of fines.

(13)	I have not received any request or complaint in relation to this procedure.

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

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

Brussels, 12 May 2017.

Wouter WILS

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

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

30.8.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/6

Summary of Commission Decision

of 18 May 2017

imposing fines under Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 for the supply by an undertaking of incorrect or misleading information

(Case M.8228 — Facebook/WhatsApp (Art. 14(1) proc.))

(notified under document number C(2017)3192)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(2017/C 286/06)

On 17 May 2017 the Commission adopted a Decision under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 14(1) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the case on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html

I. INTRODUCTION

Facebook, Inc. (also referred to as ‘the Notifying Party’) is a provider of websites and applications for mobile devices (‘apps’) offering social networking, consumer communications and photo/video sharing functionalities. Facebook, Inc. also provides online advertising space. In particular, it offers the social networking platform, ‘Facebook’ (‘FB’), the consumer communications app, ‘Facebook Messenger’ (also referred to as ‘FBM’) and the photo and video-sharing platform, ‘Instagram’ (‘IG’). In the EEA, Facebook, Inc. operates via its wholly owned subsidiary Facebook Ireland Limited. Together, Facebook, Inc. and Facebook Ireland Limited are collectively hereinafter referred to as ‘Facebook’.

WhatsApp Inc. is a provider of consumer communications services via the mobile app, ‘WhatsApp’ (‘WA’). It does not sell advertising space, or the user data which it collects. WhatsApp Inc. has been a subsidiary of the Notifying Party since 6 October 2014.

The acquisition by the Notifying Party of sole control over WhatsApp Inc. within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, which was reviewed by the Commission under case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp and unconditionally cleared by decision of 3 October 2014, is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Transaction’. The Notifying Party and WhatsApp Inc. are jointly referred to as the ‘Parties’.

II. INFRINGMENTS

Recital 5 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (2) (‘the Implementing Regulation’) states that: ‘It is for the notifying parties to make a full and honest disclosure to the Commission of the facts and circumstances which are relevant for taking a decision on the notified concentration.’

Article 3(1) of the Implementing Regulation provides that the notifications ‘shall be submitted in the manner prescribed by Form CO as set out in Annex I’ and Article 4(1) of that Regulation provides that the information contained in notifications ‘shall be correct and complete’. Annex I of the Implementing Regulation (Form CO) requires the following declaration to be signed by or on behalf of all the notifying parties: ‘The notifying party or parties declare that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the information given in this notification is true, correct, and complete, that true and complete copies of documents required by Form CO have been supplied, that all estimates are identified as such and are their best estimates of the underlying facts, and that all the opinions expressed are sincere.’ (3)

Pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’), the ‘Commission may by decision impose on the persons referred to in Article 3(1)b, undertakings or associations of undertakings, fines […] where, intentionally or negligently:

(a)	They supply incorrect or misleading information in a submission, certification, notification or supplement thereto, pursuant to Article 4, Article 10(5) or Article 22(3).

(b)	They supply incorrect or misleading information in response to a request made pursuant to Article 11(2)’.

Within this legal framework and on the basis of the evidence contained in the case file, the Commission considers that with respect to the possibility to automatically match FB user identities (‘IDs’) with WA users' mobile phone numbers, Facebook, Inc. has:

(a)	at least negligently supplied incorrect or misleading information in a notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation in the context of Case No. M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp, and

(b)	at least negligently supplied incorrect or misleading information in response to a request made pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation in the context of case No. M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp.

a. Facts

Both before and after the notification related to case M.7217, the Commission asked questions to the Notifying Party in relation to the possibility to automatically match FB and WA accounts.

Specifically, during the prenotification phase, the Commission raised the issue of whether ‘[p]ost-acquisition, [the Notifying Party was] planning to link/match in any way customers' profiles on WhatsApp with these customers' profiles on Facebook (e.g. by linking customers' mobile numbers from WhatsApp to these customers' Facebook accounts)’ (4).

10.

After the notification, during the Phase I investigation, the Commission received the paper by a third party complainant (the ‘Third Party Paper’). The Third Party Paper contained statements related to the possibility of Facebook aggregating user data between Facebook and WhatsApp using a ‘gateway’ between the Facebook and WhatsApp ‘platforms’ enabling cross-platform messaging, ‘without [the user] having to take any action’, or by ‘federating’ users' profiles with ‘a minimum user interaction required to grant Facebook access to the Whatsapp [sic] user ID (phone number)’. By the request for information (‘RFI’) of 18 September 2014, the Commission requested the Parties to ‘explain and substantiate whether [the Third Party Paper] accurately represent[ed] the technical ability (and incentive) of Facebook to integrate WhatsApp post-merger’ as well as to ‘provide any other comments [it] consider[ed] relevant’. (5)

11.

In the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014 (submitted on 23 September 2014), the Notifying Party stated that ‘[t]he matching [of WhatsApp and Facebook users] would need to be done manually, by the users themselves — Facebook users would have to enter, validate and update their mobile phone numbers or WhatsApp users would need to register with Facebook and create Facebook IDs and profiles.’ (6) Moreover, the Notifying Party stated that ‘The issue is whether Facebook knows the one thing about the user (other than name) that WhatsApp also knows – the user's current mobile phone number(s). Nothing else in a user's Facebook profile will enable matching, and WhatsApp stores very little user data beyond the mobile phone numbers in the user's handset's native address book. The Paper baldly asserts that “[t]heir [sic] is minimum user interaction required to grant Facebook access to the WhatsApp user ID”. This is simply not true. Because it is not possible to “match” Facebook IDs with each WhatsApp mobile phone number ID associated with the individual user on an automated basis, the matching would need to be done manually, by users’. (7) Similar statements were included in the notification form (‘Form CO’).

12.

At the time of submitting the Form CO and the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014, Facebook personnel were exploring ways to match IG and FB users. For this purpose, they were discussing the possibility to match users based on ‘Phone IDs’ and had already identified the ‘Phone ID Matching Solution’, which lies at the core of the user matching approach pursued by Facebook in connection with the update of WhatsApp's terms of service and privacy policy released in August 2016.

13.

However, the availability of the Phone ID Matching Solution in 2014, and particularly at the time of the review of the Transaction, differed according to the type OS at issue (that is, iOS v. Android OS).

14.

With respect to Android OS devices, at the time of submitting the Form CO and the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014, Facebook personnel had identified a mechanism to implement the Phone ID Matching Solution without having to change the applications' publisher.

15.

With regard to iOS devices, at the time of submitting the Form CO and the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014, Facebook personnel were aware of the possibility of implementing the Phone ID Matching Solution by changing the applications' publisher.

16.

Furthermore, although the efforts undertaken by Facebook personnel towards achieving user matching were specifically aimed at matching FB and IG accounts, the Phone ID Matching Solution and the mechanisms needed to implement it on the different OSs are potentially applicable to any application belonging to Facebook. Indeed, at the time of submitting the Form CO and the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014, Facebook personnel considered implementing the Phone ID Matching Solution to automatically match users across FB and WA once WhatsApp Inc. would be acquired by Facebook, Inc.

17.

In addition, while Facebook's efforts were specifically aimed at matching FB and IG accounts for de-duplicating purposes, the Phone ID Matching Solution and its implementing mechanisms can equally be used to match users across Facebook apps for other purposes (e.g. for advertising purposes), but not for the purposes of enabling cross-platform integration or messaging.

b. Assessment

18.

The Commission considers that the information provided in the Form CO and in the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014 was incorrect or misleading within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Implementing Regulation and Article 14(1) of the Merger Regulation. This is beause, despite the availability of these automated matching solutions, during the investigation related to case M.7217 Facebook, Inc. stated that user matching between FB and WA would either (i) have to be done manually by FB/WA users, and would therefore be insufficient and unreliable; or (ii) require Facebook to significantly re-engineer the apps' code.

19.

The Commission also considers that Facebook, Inc. acted at least negligently in supplying the incorrect and misleading information. Indeed, the Commission notes that at the time of the review of the Transaction and, in particular, when submitting the Form CO (on 29 August 2014) and the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014 (on 23 September 2014), Facebook, Inc. was aware or should have been aware that automated matching between a user's FB and WA accounts was or would have been possible. Moreover, Facebook, Inc. had been explicitly informed about the importance of supplying correct and not misleading information and warned about possible fines.

III. DECISION TO IMPOSE FINES

20.

Article 14(1) of the Merger Regulation states that, in case of intentional or negligent infringement of the procedural obligations provided for in the subparagraphs (a) to (f) ‘[t]he Commission may by decision impose on the persons referred to in Article 3(1)b, undertakings or associations of undertakings, fines not exceeding 1 % of the aggregate turnover of the undertaking or association of undertakings concerned within the meaning of Article 5’.

21.

As stated above, the Commission considers that Facebook, Inc. at least negligently supplied incorrect or misleading information in the Form CO in violation of Article 14(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation and Article 4(1) of the Implementing Regulation as well as in a response to an RFI pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation in violation of Article 14(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. The Commission considers that these two submissions constitute two separate infringements of procedural obligations contained in the Merger Regulation and the Implementing Regulation, that those infringments are not time-barred, and that, therefore, fines should be imposed on Facebook, Inc. for these two infringements in accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Article 14(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. (8)

22.

As regards the determination of the appropriate level of the fines to be imposed on Facebook, Inc., according to Article 14(3) of the Merger Regulation ‘[i]n fixing the amount of the fine, regard shall be had to the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement’.

23.

As regards the nature of the infringments committed by Facebook, Inc., the Commission considers that they are of serious nature. A company's obligation to provide correct and non-misleading information in a merger investigation is essential for the Commission to review mergers effectively. Therefore, the provision of incorrect or misleading information in the Form CO or in replies to RFIs is in itself a serious infringement because it prevents the Commission from having information necessary for it to assess a transaction that has been notified to it.

24.

As regards the gravity of the two infringements committed by Facebook, Inc., the Commission considers that the incorrect or misleading information was supplied at least negligently. The Commission also notes that, albeit relevant, the incorrect or misleading information provided by Facebook did not have any impact on the outcome of the Commission's clearance decision in Case M.7217.

25.

As regards the duration of the infringements, the Commission considers that the provision of incorrect or misleading information is by nature an instantaneous infringement, which is committed in the very moment the incorrect or misleading information is supplied to the Commission. In this case, the Commission considers that Facebook, Inc. committed two infringements in two specific instances, namely on 29 August 2014 (when the Form CO was notified) and on 23 September 2014 (the date of the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014).

26.

In addition, the Commission considers that the cooperative behaviour showed by Facebook in the course of the current proceedings can be considered as a mitigating factor in the determination of the amount of the fines. In June 2016, Facebook proactively approached the Commission, and then it acknowledged the essence of the facts and the infringements of Article 4(1) of the Implementing Regulation and Article 14(1) of the Merger Regulation, allowing administrative efficiencies in these proceedings. The Commission has not identified aggravating circumstances.

27.

Finally, the Commission takes into account the need to ensure that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PROPOSAL

28.

In view of all that precedes, the Decision concludes that:

(a)

With respect to the possibility of matching FB IDs automatically with WA users' mobile phone numbers, Facebook, Inc. at least negligently supplied incorrect or misleading information:

i.	in the Form CO in case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp, and

ii.	in the response to the RFI of 18 September 2014 pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation in case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp.

(b)

Given the circumstances of this case, the following fines should be imposed on Facebook, Inc.:

i.	EUR 55 million for the infringement falling within Article 14(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation and Article 4(1) of the Implementing Regulation, and

ii.	EUR 55 million for the infringement falling within Article 14(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

(3) Implementing Regulation, Annex I, Form CO relating to the notification of a concentration pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, Section 11.

(4) Fourth Set of Pre-Notification Questions, question 5.

(5) RFI of 18 September 2014. This RFI was sent by the Commission's services, to the Parties' legal representatives on 18 September 2014 at 7:12 PM CET by email titled ‘M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp — Request for Information’, and contained the following statement: ‘Please note that this is a formal request pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the “Merger Regulation”). You will not receive any separate letter or fax Please note that Article 14 of the Merger Regulation provides for penalties up to 1 % of the aggregate turnover of the undertaking concerned for supplying incorrect or misleading information as a response to a request pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation.’ In the email the Commission also explained that the question had risen as ‘[i]n the course of the market investigation, [the Commission had] received [a] submission from a third party regarding the options for technical integration between Facebook and WhatsApp’, i.e. the Third Party Paper, which was attached to the RFI of 18 September 2014.

(6) Response to the RFI of 18 September 2014, p. 1. Similar statements were included in the Form CO, paragraphs 304-309.

(7) Response to the RFI of 18 September 2014, p. 5. Similar statements were included in the Form CO, paragraphs 304-309.

(8) The Commission considers that Facebook, Inc., but not WhatsApp Inc., is liable for both infringements as the relevant information lied in Facebook's sphere of influence.

30.8.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/11

Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2017/C 286/08)

The European Commission has approved this minor amendment in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 (1).

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A MINOR AMENDMENT

Application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2)

‘MONTASIO’

EU No: PDO-IT-02251 — 21.12.2016

PDO ( X ) PGI ( ) TSG ( )

1. Applicant group and legitimate interest

Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Montasio

Vicolo Resia, 1/2

33033 Codroipo (UD)

ITALIA

Tel. +39 0432912052

E-mail: info@formaggiomontasio.net

The consortium for the protection of Montasio cheese is formed by producers of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese. It is authorised to submit an amendment application under Article 13(1) of Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy Decree No 12511 of 14 October 2013.

2. Member State or Third Country

Italy

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

—	☒	Product description
—	☐	Proof of origin
—	☒	Method of production
—	☐	Link
—	☐	Labelling
—	☐	Other [to be specified]

4. Type of amendment(s)

—	☐	Amendment to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires no amendment to the published single document.
—	☒	Amendment to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires an amendment to the published single document.
—	☐	Amendment to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published.
—	☐	Amendment to the product specification of a registered TSG to be qualified as minor in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

5. Amendment(s)

Product description

The parameters relating to the weight and diameter of the cheese have been slightly amended.

Current wording:

‘weight: 6-8 kg;

diameter: 30-35 cm;’

Amended text:

‘weight: 5,5-8 kg;

diameter: 27-35 cm;’

The moulds used in the production of ‘Montasio’ cheese have a diameter of 30 to 35 cm; they have been used since the consortium was set up in 1986. In all these years the maximum mould size has always been used and the weight and diameter of the cheese after 60 days of maturation as indicated in the product specification are consistent with this use. In the event that the minimum mould size of 30 cm is used, the diameter of the cheese is necessarily less than 30 cm, given that ‘Montasio’ decreases in weight by approximately 15 % between 24 hours after production and 60 days of maturation, and its weight, which is approximately 6,5 kg when produced, is less than 6 kg following the weight loss.

Cheeses produced using the minimum mould size satisfy the needs of direct buyers on the one hand, who appreciate the smaller cheeses, and large retailers on the other, given that the cheeses better meet their requirements for pre-packaged products.

This amendment is to be considered as minor since the change in the parameters, as set out above, does not affect subsequent stages of processing, maturing or, in particular, the characteristics of the finished product, which remain as set out in the specification.

Method of production

The paragraph relating to the quality of the cows' feed has been slightly reworded.

Current wording: ‘Feed which traditional cheesemakers regard as adversely affecting cheese production is banned, such as fodder from marshy land or located beside busy roads. Also not authorised are vegetables, fruit and rape, or the by-products of processing rice, meal of animal origin, industrial feed for medical use, moist or silaged fresh beet pulp, by-products of beer or of distilled products, silage (except hay and maize silage) and fermented substances from the industrial processing of fruit, beet, beer and distilled products.’

Amended text: ‘Industrial feed for medical use and meal of animal origin are banned both as such and as ingredients in other feed. The following foods may not be used fresh: vegetables, fruit, rape, by-products of processing rice, beet pulp and by-products of the processing of beer, of fruit and of distillates in general. The use of hay, maize and cereal silage is allowed.’

The intention here was to clearly and unambiguously highlight the fact that industrial feed for medical use and meal of animal origin are prohibited in any form of use. It has been specified that the fermentable fresh by-products from the processing of vegetables, fruit, etc. may not be used as they are.

The use of silage has been extended to include cereals; this product is replacing the traditional maize silage, as it is less subject to aflatoxin contamination, and thus represents a healthier food for the cattle and for milk production. The general reference to feed which inhibits cheese production has also been removed, as this definition is considered inconsistent with the specification and a careful assessment of new developments in the sector is considered more useful for identifying and assessing any changes in the cattle's diet.

It should be noted that the amendments described above do not alter the quality of the milk used to make ‘Montasio’ and are therefore to be considered as minor.

The third last paragraph of Article 5(11) of the specification has been slightly amended in order to make it clearer and less open to interpretation.

Current wording: ‘“Montasio” cheese may be marketed whole or in portions after a minimum maturing period of 60 days.’

Amended text: ‘“Montasio” cheese is released for consumption after a minimum maturing period of 60 days. “Montasio” cheese may be pre-packaged, pre-portioned etc. after a minimum maturing period of 60 days.’

The intention here was to clarify that the ‘marketing of “Montasio” cheese’ means marketing directly to the consumer and not to other entities earlier in the supply chain of cheese ‘suitable for becoming Montasio’.

In addition, it was also considered important to make clear that pre-packaging, portioning, cutting into cubes, grating etc. are carried out only on ‘Montasio’ cheese that has completed its minimum maturation period of 60 days.

The final paragraph of Article 5(11) of the product specification relating to the grated product has been deleted.

Current wording:

‘“Montasio” PDO cheese is used for grating after at least 12 months of maturing and when the cheese appears crumbly, straw yellow in colour and with a few, tiny eyes’.

It has been decided to remove this limitation on how to use ‘Montasio’, which is now out of date and which was clearly aimed at informing consumers, as consumers should be free to decide how to consume and use the product, and also considering the fact that tastes and habits have changed in recent years.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘MONTASIO’

EU No: PDO-IT-02251 — 21.12.2016

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

1. Name

‘Montasio’

2. Member State or Third Country

Italy

3. Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1. Type of product

Class 1.3. Cheeses

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

‘Montasio’ is a cheese made from cow's milk, with medium or long maturing, cylindrical in shape, with a straight or almost straight heel and flat or slightly convex sides. ‘Montasio’ cheese is made from unpasteurised milk using only natural lactic bacteria or authorised starter cultures; it must be matured for at least 60 days and the moisture content is checked on the basis of samples after 10 and after 60 days of maturing. After 60 days of maturing, cheese bearing the PDO ‘Montasio’ must have the following characteristics: a maximum moisture content of no more than 36,72 %; fat content over dry matter: minimum 40 %; weight: 5,5-8 kg; diameter: 27 to 35 cm; heel: maximum 8 cm; rind: smooth, regular and elastic; consistency: compact with some eye-holes; colour: natural, slightly straw-coloured; aroma: distinctive; taste: agreeable, tending towards spicy in the case of long-matured ‘Montasio’.

‘Montasio’ cheese may be released for consumption after a minimum maturing period of 60 days. ‘Montasio’ cheese may be pre-packaged, pre-portioned etc. after a minimum maturing period of 60 days. ‘Montasio’ cheese may be marketed as ‘fresco’ (young) after a minimum maturing period of 60 days, as ‘mezzano’ (semi-mature) after a minimum maturing period of 120 days, as ‘stagionato’ (mature) after a minimum maturing period of 10 months and as ‘stravecchio’ (extra mature) after a minimum maturing period of 18 months.

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

The PDO ‘Montasio’ is produced from milk from farms located in the production area. The main breeds reared in the geographical production area are Brown Swiss, Italian Red Pied and Black Pied, and their cross-breeds. No preservatives are added and no heat treatment is authorised, only cooling to a minimum temperature of 4 °C.

At least 60 % of the feed comes from the geographical area.

The cows' feed comprises at least 60 % raw cereals, dry and green fodder and silage. The remaining proportion may contain concentrates and/or protein cattle-cake.

Industrial feed for medical use and meal of animal origin are banned both as such and as ingredients in other feed.

The following foods may not be used fresh: vegetables, fruit, rape, by-products of processing rice, beet pulp and by-products of the processing of beer, of fruit and of distillates in general.

The use of hay, maize and cereal silage is permitted.

The use of mineral and vitamin supplements is authorised.

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

The whole production process (cattle rearing, milk production, coagulation, processing of the curds, forming, draining, salting and maturing of the cheese) must take place within the area indicated in point 4.

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

—

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

The product is identified by marking, at the outset, in a specific mould which states the producer's code, the provincial acronym and the production date (year, month, day). The ‘Montasio’ PDO origin mark consists of the word ‘Montasio’ printed diagonally the right way up and upside-down (see Figure 1).

This origin mark appears on all ‘Montasio’ cheese, whether or not the producers are members of the consortium, provided the product specification has been followed.

Figure 1

1) Hot-branding of the word ‘Montasio’ and label with the letters ‘PDM’ / 2) Month of production / 3) Day of production / 4) Cheesemaker's code / 5) Provincial acronym / VI) Year of production

The logo for the designation consists of a stylised capital ‘M’, below which appears the word ‘MONTASIO’. This logo must always be reproduced using the ‘HORATIO’ font. It must comply with the proportions of Figure 2 (for example, 8 cm wide and 6 cm tall).

Figure 2

Where the entire production process, from production of the milk to the minimum 60-day maturation period, takes place in parts of the PDO production area that qualify as mountainous under the national legislation in force, the term ‘prodotto della montagna’ (‘mountain product’) may be used in the labelling. In these cases, a label with the letters ‘PDM’ (the acronym for ‘prodotto della montagna’) is printed on the heel of the cheese.

At the request of any producer (whether or not a member), the consortium may, after verification, hot-brand the PDO logo on the heel of ‘Montasio’ PDO cheese that has been matured for over 100 days (Figure 2).

4. Concise definition of the geographical area

The production area for ‘Montasio’ PDO cheese consists of: Friuli-Venezia Giulia — the whole region; Veneto — the whole of the provinces of Belluno and Treviso and part of the provinces of Padua and Venice, as follows: ‘along the boundary of the province of Padua from where it intersects with that of the province of Treviso to the Serenissima motorway, continuing to the motorway bridge over the Brenta river and then along the river to its mouth’.

5. Link with the geographical area

The natural factors are those linked to the climate in the production area, which consists largely of mountains and foothills where pasture and mountain pasture are still practised, contributing in turn to the quality of the cows' fodder.

‘Montasio’ cheese appears in the price lists of San Daniele and Udine from 1773 and 1775, which shows that it was traded and thus produced not merely locally or for own consumption. The product's strong link with the production area is shown by the extent to which it has stimulated the growth of production cooperatives. ‘Montasio’ cheese and the particular technique for producing it spread quickly in Friuli and eastern Veneto, not only because of human factors and the equipment used (the new dairy cooperatives or the foundation of the cheese-making college), and by the 1960s there were more than 650 active dairies. This growth would not have been so steady, however, in a less conducive environment than that in which the technique originally spread.

As regards the characteristics of the production area, the eastern part of Italy is, and always has been, characterised by high rainfall in the spring and autumn, and this has nurtured the spread of the grassland and cereal (wheat and barley) cultivation that provide the cattle's basic diet. The development of maize as a crop and therefore its use in fresh feed and silage also gained in importance over time. In the past few years, the growing of soya as a protein supplement has also become a typical feature of the production area.

The main characteristic of ‘Montasio’ is its great suitability for medium- to long-term maturing. In the range of national cheeses, ‘Montasio’ is among the semi-hard cheeses, but as it can be matured for up to 36 months, it is also in the rare category of long-matured hard cheeses.

Another characteristic of ‘Montasio’ is its size.

Moreover, the ‘Montasio’ PDO product specification has retained the ban on pasteurising the milk, thereby preserving to the maximum extent possible the spontaneous bacterial load of the milk produced in the production area.

Small doses of lactic fermenting agents are used (about 1 %), cooking is done at low temperatures (between 42 and 48 °C) and the draining and pressing give the cheese a medium firmness, with a moisture content at 2 months (which corresponds to the minimum age for marketing the cheese) of about 36 %.

The environment in which ‘Montasio’ developed has microbiological characteristics adapted to its development and dissemination. The product is characterised by the presence of a thermophilic microbial flora which has always made it unique among cheeses in that it can be consumed fresh (nowadays after a minimum of 2 months as it is produced from non-pasteurised milk) but can also be matured for more than 36 months; this cheese therefore has organoleptic characteristics, firmness, flavours and aromas which vary over time, precisely thanks to the bacteria naturally present in the meadows/pastures and fodder of the production area.

In fact, at 2 months' maturity ‘Montasio’ is a medium-firm cheese with a delicate flavour reminiscent of the milk from which it is produced. As maturing is extended and substances concentrate, ‘Montasio’ acquires more marked and slightly spicy flavours and the cheese becomes firmer and crumblier.

With the improvement in animal husbandry, more efficient crop-growing and the introduction of increasingly hygienic milking methods, it was felt necessary to enrich the milk with micro-organisms useful for the production of ‘Montasio’. Thus lactic acid starter cultures and selected fermenting agents (high in cocci and low in bacilli), from the milk in the production area, started to be used, a practice which subsequently became widespread.

Reference to publication of the specification

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

The consolidated text of the product specification is available on the internet: http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/3335

or alternatively:

by going directly to the homepage of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Prodotti DOP e IGP’ (at the top right-hand side of the screen), then on ‘Prodotti DOP IGP STG’ (on the left-hand side of the screen), and finally by clicking on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all'esame dell'UE’.

(1) OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 17.

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

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 286

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 60 30 August 2017

Notice No	Contents	page
	II Information
	INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2017/C 286/01	Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto) ( 1 )	1

	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2017/C 286/02	Euro exchange rates	2
2017/C 286/03	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 27 April 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.8228 — Facebook/WhatsApp (Art. 14(1) proc.) — Rapporteur: France	3
2017/C 286/04	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 11 May 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.8228(2) — Facebook/WhatsApp (ART.14(1) proc.) — Rapporteur: France	3
2017/C 286/05	Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case M.8228 — Facebook/WhatsApp	4
2017/C 286/06	Summary of Commission Decision of 18 May 2017 imposing fines under Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 for the supply by an undertaking of incorrect or misleading information (Case M.8228 — Facebook/WhatsApp (Art. 14(1) proc.)) (notified under document number C(2017)3192)	6

	V Announcements
	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY
	European Commission
2017/C 286/07	Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8576 — Balder/Varma/Serena) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	10
	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2017/C 286/08	Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs	11


	(1) Text with EEA relevance.