22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/1

---

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

of 20 February 2018

on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank

(2018/C 67/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 283(2) and 139(2) thereof,

Having regard to Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:

To appoint Mr Luis DE GUINDOS JURADO as Vice-President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2018.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8755 — PAI/BCIMC/Refresco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/02)

On 14 February 2018, 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 32018M8755. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8540 — Kuehne + Nagel/Kuehne + Nagel Drinksflow Logistics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/03)

On 8 February 2018, 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 32018M8540. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8486 — 3M Company/Scott Safety)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/04)

On 29 September 2017, 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 32017M8486. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8748 — Dr. Oetker/Bake & Co)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/05)

On 15 February 2018, 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 32018M8748. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/4

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.8480 — Praxair/Linde)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/06)

On 16 February 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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 M.8480 — Praxair/Linde, 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’).

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 February 2018

(2018/C 67/07)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2312
JPY	Japanese yen	132,41
DKK	Danish krone	7,4465
GBP	Pound sterling	0,88463
SEK	Swedish krona	9,9648
CHF	Swiss franc	1,1551
ISK	Iceland króna	123,90
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,6420
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,361
HUF	Hungarian forint	312,15
PLN	Polish zloty	4,1589
RON	Romanian leu	4,6615
TRY	Turkish lira	4,6650
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5684
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5601
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,6341
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6754
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6267
KRW	South Korean won	1 322,02
ZAR	South African rand	14,3373
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,8112
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,4415
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 757,86
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8174
PHP	Philippine peso	64,229
RUB	Russian rouble	69,6656
THB	Thai baht	38,783
BRL	Brazilian real	4,0080
MXN	Mexican peso	23,0516
INR	Indian rupee	79,7295

---

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

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/6

---

List of customs offices empowered to handle formalities for the exportation of cultural goods, published in accordance with Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 116/2009 (1)

(2018/C 67/08)

Member State	Name of customs	Region (if applicable)
BELGIUM	All customs offices
BULGARIA	All customs offices
CZECH REPUBLIC	All customs offices
DENMARK	All customs offices
GERMANY	All customs offices
ESTONIA	All customs offices
IRELAND	All customs offices
GREECE	1) Customs offices of Athens 12th km of national road Athens-Lamia (A1) 144 10 Metamorphosi
	2) 1st Customs Office of Thessaloniki Port of Thessaloniki 54110 Thessaloniki
SPAIN	Dependencia Provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Cádiz
	Aduana de Algeciras
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Málaga Todas las aduanas
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Sevilla Todas las aduanas
	Aduana de Ceuta
	Aduana de Melilla
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos especiales de Zaragoza
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Palma de Mallorca Todas las aduanas
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de las Palmas de Gran Canaria
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Santa Cruz de Tenerife
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de A Coruña
	Aduanas del Aeropuerto de Santiago de Compostela
	Dependencia Regional de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Madrid Todas las aduanas,
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Bilbao Todas las aduanas
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Alicante Todas las aduanas
	Dependencia provincial de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de Valencia Todas las aduanas
FRANCE	All customs offices
CROATIA	All customs offices
ITALY	All customs offices
CYPRUS	District Customs House of Nicosia	Nicosia
	District Customs House of Larnaca	Larnaca
	District Customs House of Limassol	Limassol
LATVIA	All customs offices
LITHUANIA	All customs offices
LUXEMBOURG	Luxembourg Aéroport (LU715000)
	Centre douanier (LU704000)
HUNGARY	Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal megyei (fővárosi) adó-és vámigazgatóságai [all County Directorates and Budapest Capital Directorate of National Tax and Customs Authority]
	Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vámigazgatóság [Directorate of Priority Taxpayers of National Tax and Customs Authority]
	Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Repülőtéri Igazgatóság [Budapest Airport Directorate of National Tax and Customs Authority]
MALTA	Customs Economic Procedures Unit Lascaris Wharf, Valletta VLT 1920
NETHERLANDS	All customs offices
AUSTRIA	All customs offices
POLAND	All customs offices
PORTUGAL	Alfândega Marítima de Lisboa
	Alfândega do Aeroporto de Lisboa
	Alfândega de Alverca
	Alfândega de Leixões
	Alfândega do Aeroporto de Sá Carneiro (Porto)
	Alfândega do Funchal
	Alfândega de Ponta Delgada
ROMANIA	All customs offices
SLOVENIA	All customs offices
SLOVAK REPUBLIC	All customs offices
FINLAND	All customs offices
SWEDEN	All customs offices
UNITED KINGDOM	All main/major UK customs offices

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 10.2.2009, p. 1.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/9

---

Calls for proposals under the work programme for grants in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020

(Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 568)

(2018/C 67/09)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, is hereby launching the following call for proposals in order to award grants to projects in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the 2018 Work Programme in the field of the trans-European telecommunication networks under the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2014-2020.

Proposals are invited for the following three call areas:

CEF-TC-2018-1: eIdentification (eID) & eSignature

CEF-TC-2018-1: Europeana

CEF-TC-2018-1: Safer internet

The total indicative budget available for proposals selected under these calls is EUR 30 million.

The deadline for the submission of proposals is 15 May 2018.

The respective call documentation is available on the CEF Telecom website:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/apply-funding/2018-cef-telecom-calls-proposals

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/10

---

Action brought on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-11/17)

(2018/C 67/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that act.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, as referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

—	The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/11

---

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-12/17)

(2018/C 67/11)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its legal order.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

—	The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/12

---

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-13/17)

(2018/C 67/12)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

—	The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/13

---

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-14/17)

(2018/C 67/13)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

—	The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/14

---

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-15/17)

(2018/C 67/14)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers, as referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

—	The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/15

---

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-16/17)

(2018/C 67/15)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision, as referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

—	The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/16

---

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-17/17)

(2018/C 67/16)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1.

Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, and in any event by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that act, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

On 18 January 2017 ESA delivered a reasoned opinion in which it maintained the conclusion that by failing to take measures to ensure implementation of the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers) and/or to notify the Authority thereof, Iceland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 31 SCA, ESA required Iceland to take the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months following the notification; that is, no later than 18 March 2017.

—

The Icelandic Government replied to the Authority’s reasoned opinion on 13 February 2017. In its reply, the Icelandic Government referred to its reply to the letter of formal notice, and stated that it aimed to submit the bill implementing the Act into Icelandic law to the Parliament before 1 April 2017.

—

The Authority received no further information on implementation until it received a Form 1, dated 30 November 2017. In the Form 1, the Icelandic Government indicated that it had fully implemented the Act into Icelandic law. Although a date for implementation was not indicated, the Icelandic Government attached to the Form 1 a copy of what it stated was an implementing measure dated 30 October 2014: the Icelandic Act No 105/2014 on the Free Right to Employment and Residence within the European Economic Area (Act No 105/2014).

—

By email of 4 December 2017, ESA wrote to the Icelandic Ministry of Welfare, asking for an explanation of whether, in the light of the replies to the letter of formal notice and reasoned opinion, the notification of Act No 105/2014 as an implementing measure was a mistake. The Ministry replied by email on 7 December 2017, stating that in its view Act No 105/2014 fully implements the Directive, and offering as an explanation for the previous line of replies that ‘it was thought more transparent to have a special clause in [Act No 105/2014] informing that the Act implements the Directive’ and that this would be added by way of the bill proposed in April 2017.

—	On 19 December 2017, having undertaken an assessment of whether then notified measures could be said to have implemented the Act, the EFTA Surveillance Authority decided to bring the matter before the Court pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 31 SCA.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/17

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8812 — Swiss Life/Crédit Agricole/CNP Assurances/Pisto)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 67/17)

1.

On 14 February 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). This notification concerns the following undertakings: — Swiss Life GIO II Lime SARL (‘Swiss Life GIO II’, Switzerland), controlled by Swiss Life Group (‘Swiss Life’, Switzerland); — Infra Invest France SAS (France), controlled by CNP Assurances (France); — Predica Prévoyance Dialogue du Crédit Agricole (France), controlled by group Crédit Agricole (‘Crédit Agricole’, France); — MacqPisto SAS (‘Pisto’, France), currently jointly controlled by Macquarie, Crédit Agricole and CNP Assurances. Swiss Life acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation indirect joint control of Pisto along with CNP Assurances and Crédit Agricole. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — Swiss Life is active in the life insurance, risk, pensions and health insurance sector in the EEA, as well as the asset management sector; — CNP Assurances is active in the personal insurance sector in France, including savings, retirement and pension risk, as well as the asset management sector; — Crédit Agricole is active in the banking, insurance and real estate sectors; — Pisto finances and operates facilities for the reception, storage and transfer of petroleum products in France.

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. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

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. The following reference should always be specified: M.8812 — Swiss Life/Crédit Agricole/CNP Assurances/Pisto Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below: Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu Fax +32 22964301 Postal 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---

22.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/19

---

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

(2018/C 67/18)

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).

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION OF PROTECTED DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN/PROTECTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS WHICH IS NOT MINOR

Application for approval of an amendment in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

‘OLI DE L’EMPORDÀ’/‘ACEITE DE L’EMPORDÀ’

EU No: PDO-ES-01161-AM01 — 9.5.2017

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

1.   Applicant group and legitimate interest

Name of the group:	Consejo Regulador de la DOP Aceite de l’Empordà
Address:	C/Sant Llàtzer, 22 B, 1er 4a 17600 Figueres GIRONA ESPAÑA
Tel./Fax	+34 972672249
Email:	oli@altemporda.org
Internet:	www.oliemporda.cat

The Regulatory Council for the Protected Designation of Origin ‘Oli de l’Empordà’/‘Aceite de L’Empordà’ is made up of all the producers and processors of the oil covered by the PDO and, as such, has a legitimate interest in submitting an amendment application.

2.   Member State or Third Country

Spain

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

—	☐	Name of product
—	☒	Description of product
—	☐	Geographical area
—	☐	Proof of origin
—	☐	Method of production
—	☐	Link
—	☐	Labelling
—	☒	Other (legal requirements)

4.   Type of amendment(s)

—	☒	Amendment to product specification of a registered PDO or PGI not qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
—	☐	Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI for which a Single Document (or equivalent) has not been published, not qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

5.   Amendment(s)

Description of product

The requested amendment is the removal of an analytical parameter (total polyphenol content) from the physico-chemical characteristics of oils covered by the PDO ‘Oli de l’Empordà’/‘Aceite de L’Empordà’. This amendment does not alter or change the quality and characteristics of the oils in any way.

In light of the amendment, the following changes have been made to the wording:

—

‘Description of product’ (Sections 3.2 of the Single Document and B3 of the specification) — The parameter ‘Total polyphenols (ppm)’ has been removed from the physico-chemical characteristics table. Furthermore, in the description of the table, the words ‘chemical composition’ have been changed to ‘physico-chemical characteristics’ in order to ensure consistency with the specification. — The paragraph ‘These extra virgin olive oils are very stable (average Rancimat value at 120 °C of 9 hours, and can never be less than 6) owing to the high level of antioxidants with polyphenol values over 300 ppm’ has been replaced by ‘These extra virgin olive oils are very stable (average Rancimat value at 120 °C of 9 hours, and can never be less than 6) owing to the high level of antioxidants (mainly polyphenols).’.

—

Changes to the wording have also been made in Section 5.2 of the Single Document, ‘Specificity of the product’, where the text ‘High level of stability. The oils are very stable due to their high antioxidant content ([polyphenols] > 300 ppm)’ has been replaced by ‘High level of stability. The oils are very stable due to their high antioxidant content (mainly polyphenols).’.

This amendment concerning the physico-chemical parameters has been made in accordance with the study by the Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA) of 10 June 2016‘Technical considerations regarding replacing the total polyphenols parameter with the Rancimat stability parameter in the case of the PDO “Oli de l’Empordà”’. The study concludes that deleting the total polyphenols parameter is justified given its very strong correlation with the Rancimat stability parameter, which is already included in the specification. The information about total polyphenol content is redundant since the stability parameter provides more practical information for the consumer (shelf life and the length of time the product’s organoleptic properties will be maintained following purchase).

Other: National legal requirements

The section concerning national legal requirements has been removed from the specification since it is not required under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘OLI DE L’EMPORDÀ’/‘ACEITE DE L’EMPORDÀ’

EU No: PDO-ES-01161-AM01 — 9.5.2017

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

1.   Name

‘Oli de l’Empordà’/‘Aceite de l’Empordà’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Spain

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Class 1.5 Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.)

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

Extra-virgin olive oil from olives of the Argudell, Curivell Llei de Cadaqués and Arbequina varieties, obtained by mechanical processes or other physical means that do not impair the oil, conserving the taste, aroma and characteristics of the fruit from which it is produced.

This PDO olive oil is produced from olives of the native Argudell, Curivell and Llei de Cadaqués varieties and the traditional Arbequina variety that are grown in registered groves. The main varieties are Argudell, which must account for a minimum of 51 % of the oil contained in the mixture, and Arbequina. The total amount of oil from these two varieties together must account for over 95 % of the mixture.

Where olives of different varieties are mixed to produce the oil, its composition by variety of olive will be calculated on the basis of the oil yield of each consignment of olives used.

The oils have the following physico-chemical characteristics:

Fatty acids:
Oleic acid (%)	67,0 (with extreme values of 60 and 75)
Linoleic acid (%)	13,0 (with extreme values of 8 and 18)
Palmitic acid (%)	14,0 (with extreme values of 11 and 18)
Stability (Rancimat value at 120 °C)	Average value 9 h, never less than 6 h

The oils have the following organoleptic characteristics:

Colour: from straw yellow to green of varying intensity.

Attributes	Value (adjective)	Median and limits
Defects	None	0
Greenly fruity aroma	Medium or medium-strong intensity and greenly fruity	5,0 (with extreme values of 4 and 7), where over half the tasters identify the fruitiness as ‘green’.
Bitter	Medium intensity	4,0 (with extreme values of 3 and 6)
Pungent	Medium intensity	4,0 (with extreme values of 3 and 6)
Balance	Well balanced	Difference between fruity and [bitter or pungent] < 2,0

Applying the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 (2), the organoleptic profile of the PDO ‘Oli de l’Empordà’ or ‘Aceite de L’Empordà’ is as follows: well balanced, greenly fruity oils of medium intensity. On the palate, they have medium bitterness and pungency due to their high polyphenol content; the adjectives ‘medium’, ‘well balanced’ and ‘green’ have a numerical equivalent, laid down in the said standard.

On the basis of other secondary descriptors of aromatic type (COI/T.20) the sensory profile of these oils is as follows: ‘oils with aromas normally reminiscent of freshly cut grass and/or walnut; there may also be aromas of tropical fruit, green fruit or artichoke, and an almondy aftertaste’.

These extra virgin olive oils are very stable (average Rancimat value at 120 °C of 9 hours, and can never be less than 6) owing to the high level of antioxidants (mainly polyphenols).

These characteristics of the PDO ‘Oli d’Empordà’ are directly related to the predominance of the main variety: Argudell. This variety produces greenly fruity oils, with hints of grass and artichoke, that are bitter and pungent on the palate; these attributes are maintained with the addition of Arbequina, which has more neutral aromas and is much less bitter and pungent, so that Argudell’s sensory character predominates, and increases in proportion with the amount the mixture contains.

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

The raw material used for the production of Empordà olive oil is olives of the Argudell, Arbequina, Curivell and Llei de Cadaqués varieties grown in the geographical area described in point 4.

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

The olives must be grown and the product processed solely within the geographical area defined in point 4.

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

The oil may be bottled either within or outside the defined geographical area, provided that there is a reliable traceability system and that it is properly labelled.

For retail sale the product must be packaged in containers holding up to 5 litres made of glass, food-grade coated metal, PET, vitrified ceramic or other materials permitted by the legislation in force.

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

The name ‘Oli de l’Empordà’ (Catalan) or ‘Aceite de L’Empordà’ (Spanish) must be displayed on the packaging, together with the words ‘Denominación de Origen Protegida’ and any other information laid down in the relevant legislation.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

The protected area comprises the 68 municipalities in the comarca of Alt Empordà and the 36 municipalities in the comarca of Baix Empordà, five neighbouring municipalities in the comarca of Gironès (Viladasens, Sant Jordi Desvalls, Flaçà, Madremanya and Llagostera) and three in Pla de l’Estany (Crespià, Esponellà and Vilademuls). They are all in the province of Girona and located in the far north of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia.

5.   Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

In terms of soil and climate, the defined geographical area is characterised by three factors:

—	Soils: mostly poor, light and with an acid or neutral pH

—	Temperature: moderated by the influence of the sea

—	Wind: northerly wind that is a feature of the area: the tramontana.

In L’Empordà olives are grown mainly where the soil is poor, i.e. on marginal and peneplain elevations close to the foothills of the Pyrenees (Serra de l’Albera and Serra de Rodes) in the north and of Montgrí and the Sierra de Les Gabarres in the south. The soils are mostly light, with an acid or neutral pH and derive from schist, granite or gneiss, characteristic of the foothills of the Pyrenees.

The climate of the olive-growing area in the comarca of L’Empordà is classified by Papadakis as Maritime Mediterranean and by Thornthwaite as dry subhumid on the coast and subhumid inland.

Temperatures, and the diurnal temperature variation are moderated by the influence of the sea. Frost occurs from mid-November to the end of March.

Average precipitation varies from 550 mm in the northern coastal area to 850 mm further inland close to the foothills of the Pyrenees. Distribution is irregular, concentrated in the months of September and October.

The water balance shows that from June to August there is a period of drought, typical of Mediterranean areas.

The wind pattern is dominated by northerly winds: the tramontana.

This is a wind that is always dry, can sometimes be very fierce and is one of the main features of the climate of L’Empordà.

These winds in the cold winter months reduce the risk of sharp frosts which affect the olive groves and this enables the olive trees to survive in these districts.

In summer there are south-easterly breezes, which moderate the daytime temperatures and maintain a high relative humidity during this period.

Historical and human factors

L’Empordà extra virgin olive oil is directly linked with the history, tradition and culture of the protected area.

Olives were being grown and olive oil produced over 2 500 years ago, according to historical sources and archaeological excavations carried out.

Olive oil has always coexisted with other typical Mediterranean products such as wine, both very important to local economic development. The holdings are small, the land is divided into many parts and much of the oil is produced by cooperatives.

It is an eminently social type of farming, where whole families are involved in the different growing tasks, especially harvesting.

The specific climatic conditions and the work of generations of growers have led to the selection of three native varieties that are grown only in the defined geographical area: Argudell (majority) and Curivell and Llei de Cadaqués (minority).

The Arbequina variety has also been grown as a traditional variety for over 100 years.

5.2.   Specificity of the product

The specific character of this oil is due to the native Argudell content (over 51 %). This variety is particularly well adapted to Empordà’s particular climatic and soil conditions, which is why it is the most widely grown in that area, despite competition from other varieties, both Catalan and French. It is a very hardy variety: it is well adapted to the poor soil and can withstand the strong prevailing winds (tramontana) as it is very robust and has a low crown foliage density and a high FRF (fruit retention force).

Genetically (molecular DNA markers) this variety is very distinct from other Catalan varieties, with a similarity coefficient of less than 0,30 (where identical genotypes have a value of 1).

High level of stability. The oils are very stable due to their high antioxidant content (mainly polyphenols). The average Rancimat value at 120 °C is 9 hours, and it can never be less than 6 hours.

Their stability is also due to their high oleic acid content (67 % — with extreme values of 60 % and 75 %), 13 % linoleic acid (with extreme values of 8 % and 18 %) and 14 % palmitic acid (with extreme values of 11 % and 18 %). As this is the northernmost olive-growing region in the Iberian peninsula, production of the same varieties in other parts of Spain would produce oils containing less oleic acid, more linoleic acid and with a lower level of stability, factors which depend, to a large extent, on the latitude of the production area.

Characteristic flavour (in accordance with the terms set out in COI-T20 for PDO olive oils) aromas usually reminiscent of freshly cut grass and/or walnut; there may also be aromas of tropical fruit, green fruit or artichoke, and an almondy aftertaste. The specific influence of the area favours a high concentration of aromas, which translates as fruitiness of medium intensity or in some cases strong intensity (intensity from 4 to 7). On the palate, the high concentration of polyphenols, compared to other areas of Catalonia, translates as bitterness and pungency of medium intensity (intensity between 3 and 6), and clearly balances the intensity of the fruitiness (difference between fruitiness and bitterness or pungency less than 2), as defined in Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91.

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)

As described above, it is the combination of history, olive-growing tradition and the features of the natural environment that have made it possible to grow olives in these districts and have given rise to a very specific varietal structure.

When selecting suitable varieties the growers have always sought cultivars adapted to the area’s strong winds and particularly poor soil. Thus Argudell became the predominant variety, as it is the best adapted to these conditions. Later, Arbequina also proved itself to be well adapted to local conditions and it guaranteed more regular yields, without altering the profile of the oils, as it does not have a dominant character and is used in small proportions.

In addition, the regulating effect of the Mediterranean made olive growing viable at this latitude where the intense winter cold would harm the trees, and where the sea breezes provide the moisture needed for budding and fruiting. The heat summation in summer favours lipogenesis and the synthesis of monounsaturated fatty acids. The strong, dry autumn winds (tramontana) ward off health problems and favour proper ripening, which contributes to the high quality of the fruit harvested. Finally, the light, acid or neutral soils, derived from schist or granite, which predominate in the area, in contrast to the clayey, limey soils in other olive-growing areas, favour the accumulation of polyphenols in the fruit.

All this helps to produce an oil with a specific composition and sensory profile.

Reference to publication of the specification

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

http://gencat.cat/alimentacio/modificacion-pliego-aceite-emporda/

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 248, 5.9.1991, p. 1.

---