Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10085 — Clearlake Capital Group/Siris Capital Group/Endurance/Web.com)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/01)

On 29 January 2021, 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 32021M10085. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9679 — United Group/Bulgarian Telecommunications Company)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/02)

On 3 April 2020, 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 32020M9679. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 February 2021

(2021/C 40/03)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1996
JPY	Japanese yen	126,24
DKK	Danish krone	7,4367
GBP	Pound sterling	0,87693
SEK	Swedish krona	10,1358
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0818
ISK	Iceland króna	156,10
NOK	Norwegian krone	10,3380
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,895
HUF	Hungarian forint	355,59
PLN	Polish zloty	4,4941
RON	Romanian leu	4,8755
TRY	Turkish lira	8,5490
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5727
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5358
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,3003
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6666
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6025
KRW	South Korean won	1 341,26
ZAR	South African rand	18,0297
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,7542
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,5715
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 838,85
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8686
PHP	Philippine peso	57,668
RUB	Russian rouble	90,6192
THB	Thai baht	36,060
BRL	Brazilian real	6,4285
MXN	Mexican peso	24,2904
INR	Indian rupee	87,4345

---

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

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 September 2020 at 10:30-13:00 (CEST (1)) concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40299 – Closure Systems

Rapporteur: Slovenia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/04)

---

(1)  Central European Summer Time (i.e. Brussels time).

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40299 – Closure Systems

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/05)

The draft decision, addressed to Magna (2), Brose (3) and Kiekert (4) (collectively ‘the Parties’), concerns two single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) covering the territories of the EEA.

The two infringements are described as agreements and/or concerted practices by which the participants coordinated their pricing behaviour and exchanged commercially sensitive information in order to reduce competitive uncertainty for sales of door modules and window regulators (first infringement) and of latches and strikers (second infringement) to certain manufacturers of passenger cars in the EEA (5). The draft decision finds that Magna participated in both infringements, while Brose participated only in the first infringement and Kiekert only in the second infringement.

On 9 July 2019, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (6)against the Parties.

Following settlement discussions (7)and settlement submissions (8)in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, the Commission adopted a statement of objections (the ‘Statement of Objections’) addressed to the Parties on 30 June 2020.

In their respective replies to the Statement of Objections, the Parties confirmed, pursuant to Article 10a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, that the Statement of Objections reflected the contents of their settlement submissions and that they therefore remained committed to following the settlement procedure.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the Parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. I conclude that it does so.

In view of the above, and taking into account that the Parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (9), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the Parties to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

---

(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).

(2)  Magna International Inc., Magna Closures S.p.A., Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH and MAGNA International Europe GmbH (together referred to as ‘Magna’).

(3)  Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg, Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft II, Coburg, Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg (formerly named Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg), Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg (formerly named Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg) and Brose Verwaltung SE, Coburg (formerly named Brose Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, Coburg) (together referred to as ‘Brose’).

(4)  Kiekert AG (‘Kiekert’).

(5)  The first infringement took place from 12 August 2010 to 21 February 2011; the second infringement took place from 15 June 2009 to 7 May 2012.

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

(7)  The settlement meetings took place between 10 September 2019 and 26 March 2020.

(8)  The Parties submitted their formal requests to settle between 7 and 17 April 2020.

(9)  Under Article 15(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU, parties to the proceedings in cartel cases which engage in settlement discussions pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, may call upon the hearing officer at any stage during the settlement procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights. See also paragraph 18 of Commission Notice 2008/C 167/01 on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1).

Summary of Commission Decision

of 29 September 2020

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

(Case AT.40299 – Closure Systems)

(notified under document C(2020) 6486)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/06)

On 29 September 2020, the Commission adopted a decision relating to proceedings under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

(1)

On 29 September 2020, the Commission adopted a Decision relating to two single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

(2)

The first infringement consisted of price coordination and exchange of commercially sensitive information with a view to reducing competitive uncertainty for sales of door modules and window regulators of a certain passenger car model in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’). This first infringement took place from 12 August 2010 to 21 February 2011.

(3)

The second infringement consisted of price coordination and exchange of commercially sensitive information with a view to reducing competitive uncertainty for sales of latches and strikers in relation to certain manufacturers of passenger cars in the EEA. This second infringement took place from 15 June 2009 to 7 May 2012.

(4)

This Decision thus concerns the supply of closure systems for passenger cars. Closure systems serve to maintain and control access to a vehicle and to reliably open and close a vehicle's doors, lift-gates, trunks, hoods and door windows in order to protect the vehicle and its occupants. Closure systems encompass various components such as latches, strikers, window systems and door modules.

(5)

Latches and strikers are used to secure automotive side and sliding doors, tailgates and trunks.

(6)

Window regulators are manual or electronic window lift assemblies for front and rear door applications in vehicles to automatically raise or lower windows. Depending on the customer's preferences, window regulators may be integrated into door modules or procured on a stand-alone basis.

(7)

A door module is an assembly of components that operate the door's electronic and mechanical functionalities. It consists of a rubber-sealed carrier, onto which a variety of door components such as the window lift mechanism, the wing mirror electric motor, the wiring, the loud speaker, the door latch inner release cable, a latch and various switches are fitted, forming a ‘cassette’.

(8)

This Decision is addressed to the following legal entities being part of the following undertakings (the ‘parties’): — MAGNA: Magna International Inc., Magna Closures S.p.A., Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH and MAGNA International Europe GmbH — BROSE: Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg, Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft II, Coburg, Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg (2), Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg (3) and Brose Verwaltung SE, Coburg (4) — KIEKERT: Kiekert AG

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

(9)

MAGNA submitted an immunity application on 5 May 2015 under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice (5) in relation to collusive contacts related to supplies of certain car parts to car manufacturers in the EEA. Following unannounced inspections, KIEKERT applied on 29 March 2016 for immunity from fines or, in the alternative, for a reduction of fines under the Leniency Notice. On 11 April 2016, BROSE applied for immunity from fines or, in the alternative, for a reduction of fines under the Leniency Notice.

(10)

On 9 July 2019, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against the parties with a view to engaging in settlement discussions with them. Settlement meetings and contacts between the Commission and each party took place between September 2019 and March 2020. Subsequently, all parties submitted their formal request to settle pursuant to Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (6).

(11)

On 30 June 2020, the Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to the parties. All of the parties replied to the statement of objections by confirming that it reflected the contents of their settlement submissions and that they remained committed to following the settlement procedure.

(12)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 23 September 2020.

2.2.   Summary of the infringements

(13)

This Decision concerns two separate bilateral single and continuous infringements: (a) The first infringement concerns price coordination and exchange of commercially sensitive information between MAGNA and BROSE related to the supply of door modules and window regulators for passenger C-class car models A205, C205, S205 and W205, (hereinafter ‘BR205’) to Daimler. (b) The second infringement concerns price coordination and exchange of commercially sensitive information between MAGNA and KIEKERT related to the supply of latches and strikers for passenger cars to BMW and Daimler; for Daimler only in relation to supplies of G/GN/GL2-latches and strikers through the joint purchasing initiative ‘Industriebaukasten’ (‘IBK’) between Daimler and BMW (‘IBK sales’).

2.2.1.   Infringement MAGNA - BROSE

(14)

The objective of the first infringement was to preserve each party’s existing door modules and window regulators business with Daimler, to avoid a price war leading to the deterioration of the prevailing pricing levels of the supplies of door modules and window regulators and to allocate new supplies of those products between the parties under the bid launched in July 2010. The infringement covered the EEA.

(15)

In the course of the tender procedure, BROSE decided to disregard the alignment on prices and the award split and instead to bid to win the entire award. However, it kept pretending towards MAGNA that it still complied with the alignment on prices and on the award split as agreed with MAGNA. BROSE won the entire award.

2.2.2.   Infringement MAGNA - KIEKERT

(16)

The objective of the second infringement was to protect and preserve each party’s existing latches and strikers business with BMW and to avoid a price war leading to the deterioration of the prevailing pricing levels of these supplies. In this context, the parties pursued the objective of allocating the supply of latches and strikers for passenger cars to BMW and to Daimler for IBK sales. The infringement covered the EEA.

2.2.3.   Duration

(17)

The duration of the participation of each party in the infringements was as follows: Infringement Undertaking Start End I MAGNA 12.8.2010 21.2.2011 BROSE 12.8.2010 21.2.2011 II MAGNA 15.9.2009 7.5.2012 KIEKERT 15.9.2009 7.5.2012

2.3.   Addressees

2.3.1.   MAGNA

(18)

Liability for the first infringement is imputed jointly and severally to Magna Closures S.p.A., Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH and MAGNA International Europe GmbH (for their direct participation) and Magna International Inc. (in its capacity as parent of Magna Closures S.p.A., Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH and MAGNA International Europe GmbH) from 12 August 2010 to 21 February 2011.

(19)

Liability for the second infringement is imputed jointly and severally to Magna Closures S.p.A. and Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH (for their direct participation) and Magna International Inc. (in its capacity as parent company of Magna Closures S.p.A. and Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH) from 15 June 2009 to 7 May 2012.

2.3.2.   BROSE

(20)

Liability for the first infringement is imputed jointly and severally to Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg, Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg and Brose Verwaltung SE, Coburg (for their direct participation) and Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg and Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft II, Coburg (in their capacity as parent companies of Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg, Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg, Brose Verwaltung SE, Coburg) from 12 August 2010 to 21 February 2011.

2.3.3.   KIEKERT

(21)

Liability for the second infringement is imputed to Kiekert AG, for its direct participation, from 15 June 2009 to 7 May 2012.

2.4.   Remedies

(22)	The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (7).

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

(23)

In the first infringement, the value of sales was calculated on the basis of the sales of BR205 door modules and window regulators from the start of delivery period to 2019 (the last full business year preceding the adoption of the final decision). As Magna had no relevant sales, a fictional value of sales was calculated for it and set at 50 % of the value of sales of BROSE.

(24)

In the second infringement, the value of sales was calculated on the basis of the sales of strikers and latches supplied to BMW and Daimler (for Daimler in the context of the IBK project) in the EEA in the last full business year of the infringement (2011).

(25)

Considering the nature of the infringements and their geographic scope, the percentage for the variable amount of the fines as well as the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 16 % of the value of sales for each infringement.

(26)

The variable amount is multiplied by the number of years or by fractions of the year respectively of the parties' individual participation in the infringements in order to take fully into account the actual duration of the participation for each party in the infringements individually. The duration multiplier is calculated on the basis of calendar days.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

(27)

There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in this case.

(28)

MAGNA had an annual worldwide turnover of approximately EUR 35,22 billion in 2019. A specific deterrence multiplier of 1,1 is applied to MAGNA to take into account its particularly large turnover.

2.4.3.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

(29)

None of the fines calculated exceeds 10 % of the respective party’s worldwide turnover in 2019.

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

(30)

MAGNA was the first to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice in both infringements. MAGNA is thus granted immunity from fines for both infringements.

(31)

BROSE was the first undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice as regards the first infringement and was granted a reduction of 35 % of the fine.

(32)

KIEKERT was the first undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice as regards the second infringement and was granted a reduction of 40 % of the fine. Further, Kiekert was the first party to submit compelling evidence that enabled the Commission to extend the duration of the second alleged infringement back until 15 June 2009 and to establish its starting date. In accordance with point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the period from 15 June 2009 until 4 October 2010 is not taken into account when setting the fine for KIEKERT for the second infringement.

2.4.5.   Application of the Settlement Notice

(33)

As a result of the application of the Settlement Notice, the amount of the fines to be imposed on each party was reduced by 10 %. The reduction was added to their leniency reward.

3.   CONCLUSION

(34)

The following fines were imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003: For the first infringement: (a) Magna International Inc., Magna Closures S.p.A., Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH and MAGNA International Europe GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 0; (b) Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg, Brose Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft II, Coburg, Brose Verwaltung SE, Coburg, Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg and Brose Fahrzeugteile SE & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg, jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 225 000. For the second infringement (a) Magna International Inc., Magna Closures S.p.A. and Magna Mirrors Holding GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 0; (b) Kiekert AG: EUR 14 971 000.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

(2)  Formerly, the legal entity was named Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Bamberg.

(3)  Formerly, the legal entity was named Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kommanditgesellschaft, Coburg.

(4)  Formerly, the legal entity was named Brose Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, Coburg.

(5)  OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17.

(6)  OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18.

(7)  OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey

(2021/C 40/07)

The European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request for an interim review pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’).

1.   Request for review

The request for review was lodged by Selina Balik Isleme Tesis Ithalat Ihracat ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ('the applicant'), an exporting producer from the Republic of Turkey ('the country concerned').

The request for a partial interim review is limited in scope to the examination of subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned.

2.   Product under review

The product subject to this review is rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

—	live weighing 1,2 kg or less each, or

—

fresh, chilled, frozen and/or smoked: — in the form of whole fish (with heads on), whether or not gilled, whether or not gutted, weighing 1,2 kg or less each, or — with heads off, whether or not gilled, whether or not gutted, weighing 1 kg or less each, or — in the form of fillets weighing 400 g or less each,

originating in Turkey and currently falling under CN codes ex 0301 91 90, ex 0302 11 80, ex 0303 14 90, ex 0304 42 90, ex 0304 82 90 and ex 0305 43 00 (TARIC codes 0301919011, 0302118011, 0303149011, 0304429010, 0304829010 and 0305430011) (‘product under review’).

3.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are a definitive countervailing duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 (‘the original Regulation’) (2). The investigation leading to the original Regulation is referred to as ‘the original investigation’. On 4 June 2018, the measures were maintained following a partial interim review concerning subsidisation of all exporting producers, where the Commission found that the constant changes in the implementation of direct subsidies could not be deemed to be of a lasting nature (3). On 15 May 2020, following a partial interim review limited in scope to subsidisation of one Turkish exporting producer, the Commission found that the circumstances with regard the subsidisation changed significantly and the decrease of direct subsidies is of a lasting nature insofar as the exporting producer BAFA Su Ürünleri Yavru Üretim Merkezi Sanayi Ticaret AŞ was concerned and adjusted its level of duty accordingly (4).

On 27 February 2020, the Commission published a Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-subsidy measures applicable to the product under review (5). Pending the completion of the expiry review investigation, the measures continue to be in force.

4.   Grounds for the review

The applicant submits that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation on the basis of which the existing measures were imposed as regards the applicant have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature as far as the applicant is concerned.

The applicant alleges that the continued imposition of the measures at their current level is no longer necessary to offset the injurious subsidisation in its particular situation. The applicant alleges that, during the investigation period of the original investigation, that was from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013, it had entered into a lease agreement for a period of one year according to which its entire business (facilities, staff, and existing contracts) was transferred to the lessor, Ternaeben Gida ve Su Ürünleri Ithalat ve Ihracat Sanayi Ticaret AŞ as from 15 October 2013. As a result, during the original investigation, the applicant was not in a position to participate in the proceeding in its own name. Its data were however incorporated in the data of the lessor, which cooperated with the original investigation and for which a company-specific amount of subsidisation and duty were calculated. After the expiry of the lease agreement on 15 October 2014, the applicant became subject to the ‘All other companies’ countervailing duty rate of 9,5 % which applied to all the companies not listed in the Annex of the original Regulation. The applicant submits that the expiry of the lease agreement constitutes a significant change in circumstances, compared to the situation existing during the investigation period of the original investigation and that this change is of a lasting nature pursuant to Article 19(4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

In addition, the applicant submits that the amount of subsidy it receives has decreased well below the duty rate currently applicable to the applicant. This decrease was the result of changes in the structure and the terms of the implementation of the direct subsidies granted to producers of the product under review per kg produced by the Turkish Government, affecting the situation of the applicant.

In light of the above, the Commission considers that there is sufficient evidence that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation, as far as the applicant is concerned, have changed significantly and are of a lasting nature and, therefore, the measures should be reviewed.

The Commission reserves the right to investigate other relevant subsidy practices, which may be revealed during the course of the investigation.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after informing the Member States that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of a partial interim review limited to the examination of subsidisation as far as the applicant is concerned, the Commission initiates a review in accordance with Article 19(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The purpose of the review is to establish the rate of subsidisation, which prevails for the applicant as a result of the subsidy practices of which it is found to benefit.

Following the review, it may be necessary to amend the rate of duty imposed on imports of the product under review originating in Turkey for the applicant. The Commission does not intend to amend the subsidy rates other than that of the applicant as a result of this partial interim review, if warranted.

However, if any interested party considers that a review of the measures applicable is warranted, that party may request a review pursuant to Article 19(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

The Government of the Republic of Turkey has been invited for consultations in accordance with Article 10(7) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

Regulation (EU) 2018/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council (TDI Modernisation package) (6), which entered into force on 8 June 2018, introduced a number changes to the timetable and deadlines previously applicable in anti-subsidy proceedings. Therefore, the Commission invites interested parties to respect the procedural steps and deadlines provided in this Notice as well as in further communications from the Commission.

The Commission also draws the attention of the parties that further to the COVID-19 outbreak a Notice (7) has been published on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations that may be applicable to this proceeding.

5.1.   Review investigation period

The investigation will cover the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 (‘the review investigation period’).

5.2.   Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the applicant and to the authorities of the country concerned. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

A copy of the above-captioned questionnaire is available in the file for inspection by interested parties and on DG Trade's website (https://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/case_details.cfm?id=2510).

5.3.   Interested parties

Parties will only be able to participate in the investigation as interested party from the moment they make themselves known, and provided that there is an objective link between their activities and the product under review. Being considered as an interested party is without prejudice to the application of Article 28 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

Access to the file available for inspection for interested parties is made via Tron.tdi at the following address: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tron/TDI. Please follow the instructions on that page to get access.

5.4.   Other written submissions

Subject to the provisions of this Notice, all interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence. Unless otherwise specified, this information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission may send questionnaires to interested parties that have come forward.

5.5.   Possibility to be heard by the Commission investigation services

All interested parties may request to be heard by the Commission investigation services. Any request to be heard must be made in writing and must specify the reasons for the request as well as a summary of what the interested party wishes to discuss during the hearing. The hearing will be limited to the issues set out by the interested parties in writing beforehand.

In principle, hearings will not be used to present factual information which is not yet on file. Nevertheless, in the interest of good administration and to enable Commission services to progress with the investigation, interested parties may be directed to provide new factual information after a hearing.

5.6.   Instructions for making written submissions and sending completed questionnaires and correspondence

Information submitted to the Commission for the purpose of trade defence investigations shall be free from copyrights. Interested parties, before submitting to the Commission information and/or data which is subject to third party copyrights, must request specific permission to the copyright holder explicitly allowing the Commission a) to use the information and data for the purpose of this trade defence proceeding and b) to provide the information and/or data to interested parties to this investigation in a form that allows them to exercise their rights of defence.

All written submissions, including the information requested in this Notice, completed questionnaires and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled 'Sensitive' (8). Parties submitting information in the course of this investigation are invited to reason their request for confidential treatment.

Parties providing 'Sensitive' information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 29(2) of the basic anti- subsidy Regulation, which will be labelled 'For inspection by interested parties'. These summaries must be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.

If a party providing confidential information fails to show good cause for a confidential treatment request or does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, the Commission may disregard such information unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated from appropriate sources that the information is correct.

Interested parties are invited to make all submissions and requests via TRON.tdi (https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/tron/TDI) including scanned powers of attorney and certification sheets. By using TRON.tdi or email, interested parties express their agreement with the rules applicable to electronic submissions contained in the document ‘CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN TRADE DEFENCE CASES’ published on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_148003.pdf. The interested parties must indicate their name, address, telephone and a valid email address and they should ensure that the provided email address is a functioning official business email, which is checked on a daily basis. Once contact details are provided, the Commission will communicate with interested parties by TRON.tdi or email only, unless they explicitly request to receive all documents from the Commission by another means of communication or unless the nature of the document to be sent requires the use of a registered mail. For further rules and information concerning correspondence with the Commission including principles that apply to submissions via TRON.tdi and by email, interested parties should consult the communication instructions with interested parties referred to above.

Commission address for correspondence:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate G

Office: CHAR 04/039

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

TRON.tdi: https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/tron/tdi

Email address: TRADE-R735-TROUT@ec.europa.eu

6.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 22(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation within 15 months from the date of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7.   Possibility to comment on other parties' submissions

In order to guarantee the rights of defence, interested parties should have the possibility to comment on information submitted by other interested parties. When doing so, interested parties may only address issues raised in the other interested parties' submissions and may not raise new issues.

Comments on the information provided by other interested parties in reaction to the disclosure of the definitive findings should be submitted within 5 days from the deadline to comment on the definitive findings, unless otherwise specified. If there is an additional final disclosure, comments filed by other interested parties in reaction to this further disclosure should be made within 1 day from the deadline to comment on this further disclosure, unless otherwise specified.

The outlined timeframe is without prejudice to the Commission's right to request additional information from interested parties in duly justified cases.

8.   Extension to time limits specified in this Notice

Extensions to time limits provided for in this Notice may be granted upon request of interested parties showing due cause.

Any extension to the time limits provided for in this Notice should only be requested in exceptional circumstances and will only be granted if duly justified. In any event, any extension to the deadline to reply to questionnaires will be limited normally to 3 days, and as a rule will not exceed 7 days. Regarding time limits for the submission of other information specified in the Notice of Initiation, extensions will be limited to 3 days unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

9.   Non-cooperation

In cases where any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 28 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information may be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 28 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

Failure to give a computerised response shall not be deemed to constitute non-cooperation, provided that the interested party shows that presenting the response as requested would result in an unreasonable extra burden or unreasonable additional cost. The interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

10.   Hearing Officer

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer for trade proceedings. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and any other request concerning the rights of defence of interested parties and third parties as may arise during the proceeding.

The Hearing Officer may organise hearings and mediate between the interested party/-ies and Commissions services to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised. A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. The Hearing Officer will examine the reasons for the requests. These hearings should only take place if the issues have not been settled with the Commission services in due course.

Any request must be submitted in good time and expeditiously so as not to jeopardise the orderly conduct of proceedings. To that effect, interested parties should request the intervention of the Hearing Officer at the earliest possible time following the occurrence of the event justifying such intervention. In principle, the timeframes set out in section 5.4 to request hearings with the Commission services apply mutatis mutandis to requests for hearings with the Hearing Officer. Where hearing requests are submitted outside the relevant timeframes, the Hearing Officer will also examine the reasons for such late requests, the nature of the issues raised and the impact of those issues on the rights of defence, having due regard to the interests of good administration and the timely completion of the investigation.

For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on DG Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/contacts/hearing-officer/

11.   Processing of personal data

Any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (9)

A data protection notice that informs all individuals of the processing of personal data in the framework of Commission’s trade defence activities is available on DG Trade’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 of 26 February 2015 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 12).

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/823 of 4 June 2018 terminating the partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain rainbow trout originating in the Republic of Turkey (OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 14).

(4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/658 of 15 May 2020, amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty on imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey following an interim review pursuant to Article 19(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 155, 18.5.2020, p. 3).

(5)  OJ C 64, 27.2.2020, p. 22.

(6)  Regulation (EU) 2018/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union and Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 143, 7.6.2018, p. 1).

(7)  On the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations (OJ C 86, 16.3.2020, p. 6).

(8)  A 'Sensitive' document is a document which is considered confidential pursuant to Article 29 of the basic Regulation and Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). It is also a document protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

(9)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10115—PAI Partners/Apleona Group)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/08)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10132 — Blackstone/B&J/Applegreen)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/09)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10001 — Microsoft/Zenimax)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/10)

---

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

Publication of an application for registration of a name 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

(2021/C 40/11)

This publication confers the right to oppose the application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) within three months from the date of this publication.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’

EU No: PGI-HU-02492 – 8.3.2019

PDO ( ) PGI (X)

1.   Name(s) [of PDO or PGI]

‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Hungary

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 the product to which the name in (1) applies

The protected geographical indication ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ is a root parsley produced by growing the species Petroselinum crispum L. The varieties used are Eagle, Berliner Halblang (semi-long, early varieties), Fakír and Arat (long varieties).

When placed on the market, ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ is cylindrical in shape, with a length of 200-300 mm, a diameter/width of between 20 and 40 mm, and a weight of between 50 and 150 g. The body of the root is a snow-white colour and is smooth and unbranched. ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ differs from other root parsley vegetables in that it has a smoother shape, is unbranched, and has an intensely spicy flavour and aroma.

‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ has the following chemical parameters:

—	sugar content: at least 9 g/100 g of fresh product (by weight),

—	calcium content: at least 30 mg/100 g of fresh product,

—	phosphorus content: at least 30 mg/100 g of fresh product.

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

—

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

‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ is grown and harvested in the geographical area defined 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

—

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ is grown in the vicinity of Lake Fertő in Győr Moson Sopron County in Hungary’s Western Transdanubia region. It is grown within the administrative boundaries of the villages of Hegykő and Fertőhomok, in an area to the north of the main road that runs through these villages and to the south of Lake Fertő.

5.   Link with the geographical area

The link between the product and the geographical area is based on the quality of the product.

The root parsley grown along Lake Fertő has been well known and popular for some 200 years now. ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ differs from root parsley grown elsewhere in Hungary in that it has a snow-white colour, a smoother shape, is unbranched, and has an intensely spicy flavour and aroma. This is thanks to the effect of the soil and to the climate of Lake Fertő and the foothills of the Alps.

Since flood-control measures were taken, the loose, deep-layered, fresh soil of the dry lakebed allow the root vegetable to grow deep, smooth roots without any branching.

The edge of the village of Hegykő forms part of Lake Fertő, and common characteristics of their soil are their heterogeneous, mosaic-like position, alluvially layered soil profile, highly varied mechanical composition, high CaCO3 content, and alkalinity or in some cases strong alkalinity.

The soils of the Lake Fertő basin have always been formed by natural water movements. Lower-lying areas are frequently flooded by the waters of Lake Fertő when water levels are high or there are persistent northerly winds, which bring dissolved salts and suspended sand, silt and clay particles to the areas inundated. The main factors affecting soil formation in the area are therefore sediment deposition and flattening, meadow-soil formation, and salt accumulation and salinisation. These soils are typically greyish in tone, containing sediment and coarse sands originating from the bottom of the lake. They are easy to work, yet have good water balance, which make them well suited to growing root vegetables such as ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’.

The higher calcium and phosphorus values of the root are the result of the main factors affecting soil formation in the Lake Fertő area, i.e. sediment deposition and flattening, meadow-soil formation, and salt accumulation and salinisation.

Local climate conditions are also favourable for growing ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’, as this area is Hungary’s coolest and wettest plain. The mean temperature is – 2 °C in January and + 22 °C in July, with an annual mean temperature of around + 10 °C. The lower summer temperatures are well suited to growing ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’, as the optimum temperature for growing it is around 16 °C.

The intensely spicy flavour and aroma of ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ are thanks to the distinct climate of the Lake Fertő region. Local climate conditions – particularly the prolonged growing season, owing to the cool, wet weather – favour the formation of aroma materials.

The large amount of water required during germination and the initial growth period of root parsley is provided by the region’s annual precipitation of 650-700 mm.

Yield levels are generally predictable, thanks to the soil’s water content and the water table of the enormous Lake Fertő, which is some 1 200-1 500 m away and provides the humidity required under the influence of the prevailing north-north-westerly winds. The area is also blessed with abundant sunshine from spring till autumn, with up to 2 000 hours of sunshine per year.

During ripening, the high number of sunshine hours and the prolonged growing season owing to the cool climate promote sugar formation, which gives ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ its high sugar content.

The region’s medium-dense sandy loam soil and its climate are ideal for producing root vegetables such as ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’. The loose sedimentary sandy soil gives the root its smooth, unbranched form. The prolonged growing season owing to the cool, wet weather favours the formation of spicy aroma materials. During ripening, the high number of sunshine hours provides the root with a high sugar content.

In addition to the properties of the soil, local cultivation techniques have a significant effect on the development of the long, unbranched ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’.

Ridges are created in 40 cm-deep, ploughed soil in the autumn, when the ploughed land is piled 30 cm high at a distance of 75 cm mid-crown, in such a way that the soil has an even surface. On the top of the ridge, 25-30 grain seeds are scattered per metre and row, at a depth of 1-2 cm. The shallow sowing depth has a significant effect on the even emergence of the plant from the soil. Fine-rolling loosens the soil, which is prone to cracking, also helping the plant to emerge from the soil.

Thanks to ridge planting and the properties of the soil, the root remains unbranched and smooth, and it can be harvested easily, without being damaged.

Initially, harvesting is performed manually and selectively, until the entire plant attains a suitable degree of maturity. It takes considerable expertise to select the roots that can already be picked. After mechanical loosening of the soil, the plant is harvested manually, at which point the entire crop is harvested.

‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ is a well-known, renowned and sought-after product among consumers. Its significance is highlighted in a doctoral dissertation produced by Dénes Sándor at the University of Pécs’s doctoral school in 2012, entitled ‘A gasztronómia szerepe Magyarország idegenforgalmi földrajzában’ [The role of gastronomy on Hungary’s tourist map], in which he refers to ‘Hegykői petrezselyemgyökér’ as one of the typical local ingredients of the Western Transdanubia region.

Reference to publication of the specification

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

https://gi.kormany.hu/foldrajzi-arujelzok

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

INFORMATION NOTICE

(2021/C 40/12)

The Commission would like to inform the relevant operators and Member States’ authorities that the oenological practices referred to in Section C of Part 1 and Section C of Part 2 of Annex 2-E of the Agreement between the European Union (EU) and Japan for an Economic Partnership (EPA) are authorised, in accordance with Article 2.26 of the EPA, in the EU and in Japan respectively for the wine products covered by Section C of Chapter 2 of the EPA from 15 January 2021.