Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.9854 - KHS/FERRUM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/01)

On 17 May 2021, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).

On 15 June 2021, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 27.5.2021, p. 12.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10294 — MUFG/SMFG/MHFG/Resona HD/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/02)

On 18. June 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 32021M10294. 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.10279 — TFS/Mitsui/MAF Colombia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/03)

On 18 June 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 32021M10279. 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.10241 — Colony Capital/Liberty Global/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/04)

On 18 June 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 32021M10241. 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.9686 – Mitsui/Belchim Crop Protection)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/05)

On 11 February 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32021M9686. 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.10329 — Fairfax/Eurolife)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/06)

On 18. June 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 32021M10329. 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.9677 — DIC/BASF Colors & Effects)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/07)

On 7 December 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32020M9677. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 June 2021

(2021/C 245/08)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1894
JPY	Japanese yen	131,50
DKK	Danish krone	7,4360
GBP	Pound sterling	0,85560
SEK	Swedish krona	10,1570
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0943
ISK	Iceland króna	146,60
NOK	Norwegian krone	10,2198
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,533
HUF	Hungarian forint	355,16
PLN	Polish zloty	4,5328
RON	Romanian leu	4,9255
TRY	Turkish lira	10,3395
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5818
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4726
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,2365
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7011
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6009
KRW	South Korean won	1 350,72
ZAR	South African rand	17,0431
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,7014
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,4985
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	17 196,34
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,9497
PHP	Philippine peso	57,892
RUB	Russian rouble	87,0550
THB	Thai baht	37,728
BRL	Brazilian real	5,9682
MXN	Mexican peso	24,4812
INR	Indian rupee	88,3735

---

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

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 June 2021

(2021/C 245/09)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1951
JPY	Japanese yen	132,44
DKK	Danish krone	7,4362
GBP	Pound sterling	0,85435
SEK	Swedish krona	10,1288
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0963
ISK	Iceland króna	146,40
NOK	Norwegian krone	10,1725
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,408
HUF	Hungarian forint	349,34
PLN	Polish zloty	4,5227
RON	Romanian leu	4,9263
TRY	Turkish lira	10,3334
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5762
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4667
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,2807
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6945
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6064
KRW	South Korean won	1 357,96
ZAR	South African rand	16,9387
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,7393
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,5009
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	17 265,33
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,9734
PHP	Philippine peso	58,218
RUB	Russian rouble	86,6975
THB	Thai baht	37,986
BRL	Brazilian real	5,9203
MXN	Mexican peso	24,2265
INR	Indian rupee	88,6476

---

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

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 15 December 2020 concerning a draft decision relating to case AT.39563 – Retail Food Packaging

Rapporteur: Ireland

(2021/C 245/10)

I hereby confirm that Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden participated in this Advisory Committee meeting via audio conference and asked me to sign the Opinion of the Advisory Committee on their behalf.

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.39563 – Retail Food Packaging (Re-adoption)

(2021/C 245/11)

The draft decision is addressed to three companies of the undertaking constituting the ‘CCPL Group’, namely CCPL S.c., Coopbox Group S.p.A., and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (the ‘addressees’).

BACKGROUND

On 24 June 2015, in Case AT.39653 Retail Food Packaging, the Commission adopted Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA (the ‘2015 Decision’). The 2015 Decision concluded a Commission investigation into five cartels concerning polystyrene plastic trays (‘foam trays’) and, in respect of one cartel, also polypropylene plastic trays (‘rigid trays’) used for retail packaging of fresh food such as meat, poultry and fish, involving, amongst others, the CCPL Group. The 2015 Decision established five separate infringements of Articles 101 TFEU and 53 EEA, each delineated by a different geographic scope and with different durations. The 2015 Decision imposed fines on, amongst others, the following five legal entities that were part of the CCPL Group at the time: CCPL S.c., Coopbox Group S.p.A., Poliemme S.r.l., Coopbox Hispania S.l.u. and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o., for their participation in three of the five cartels concerned by the 2015 Decision. (2)

By the 2015 Decision, the Commission imposed a total amount of fines of EUR 33 694 000 on the above-referred five legal entities of the CCPL Group. That total amount was determined after granting a 25 % reduction of the fines otherwise applicable on grounds of these entities’ reduced ability to pay as established by the Commission following the assessment of the inability to pay request lodged by them in accordance with point 35 of the Commission’s Guidelines on Fines. (3)

On 11 July 2019, the General Court rendered its judgment in Case T-522/15 (the ‘2019 Judgment’), (4) by which it annulled the fines imposed on the above-referred five legal entities of the CCPL Group in their entirety upholding the plea that the Commission had insufficiently reasoned its inability to pay assessment, while rejecting all the other pleas of the applicants. The General Court accordingly annulled the operative parts of the 2015 Decision imposing the said fines totalling EUR 33 694 000 on the above-referred five legal entities of the CCPL Group. (5)

RE-ADOPTION PROCEDURE

By letter of 18 September 2019, the Commission informed CCPL S.c., as ultimate parent of the CCPL Group and acting on behalf of the legal entities of the group when it made provisional payments and received reimbursement of these payments following the 2019 Judgment, of its intention to adopt a new decision imposing fines on the relevant entities of the CCPL Group, and inviting the concerned entities to submit their observations. By that letter, the Commission also informed CCPL S.c. of its intention to follow the same method of calculation of the adjusted basic amount as applied in the 2015 Decision. By its letter, the Commission also clarified that that method would entail applying the 10 % total turnover limit of the CCPL Group in the last full business year before the adoption of the new decision on each total of the fine amounts calculated for each of the three infringements committed. The letter finally informed CCPL S.c. that any possible request for fine reductions based on point 35 of the Guidelines on Fines, would be analysed on the basis of the CCPL Group’s most current financial situation.

On 4 October 2019, the addressees requested the Commission to consider their inability to pay under point 35 of the Guidelines on Fines. For its assessment of the request, the Commission sent CCPL Group several requests pursuant to Article 18(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (6) asking it to submit information about its financial situation and the specific social and economic context it is in.

By letter of 28 October 2019, CCPL submitted its observations in reply to the letter of 18 September 2019. In particular, CCPL drew the attention of the Commission to the CCPL Group’s lower expected total turnover for 2019 compared to 2018 (and the cessation of operations in certain prior businesses) and requested the Commission to take into account the reduced turnover to the effect of applying the 10 % turnover limit provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

By letter of 15 May 2020, the Commission confirmed its intention to adopt a new decision to replace the relevant sections of the operative part of the 2015 Decision annulled by the 2019 Judgment by imposing the applicable fines on the addressees and hold them liable for the participation in the three cartels in the sector of the supply of foam trays for retail food packaging, covering the separate geographic areas of Italy, South-West Europe (‘SWE’) and Central-Eastern Europe. Concerning the calculation of the upward limit of the applicable fines, the Commission confirmed its intention to apply the 10 % total turnover limit of the year preceding the one of adoption of the new decision on each total fines amount applicable per infringement. (7)

By letter of 15 June 2020, CCPL Group submitted further observations in reply to the letter of 15 May 2020, reiterating what it had stated in the letters dated 4 and 28 October 2019. CCPL Group submitted that the fine amounts to be determined should be reasonable, equitable, and in line with the fines imposed to the other addressees of the 2015 Decision, in order to comply with the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

THE DRAFT DECISION

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which CCPL Group has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. In the draft decision, the Commission does not address any new objections to the addressees, nor does it seek to alter the substance of the objections as set out in the Statement of Objections of 21 September 2012 in this case. Moreover, the Commission notes that Article 1 of the 2015 Decision became definitive, including with respect to the addressees that are concerned with the present proceedings. In the draft decision, due to the application of the 10 % legal maximum of CCPL Group’s total turnover in 2019 with respect to the infringements in Italy and SWE, the Commission comes to a total amount of fines of EUR 9 441 000 and concludes that the conditions set in point 35 of the Guidelines on Fines as regards inability to pay are not fulfilled at present.

In view of all of the above, and taking into account that CCPL Group has not addressed any requests or complaints to me, 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 (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

(2)  On 4 October 2019, CCPL Group informed the Commission that Coopbox Hispania S.l.u. had started judicial liquidation procedures in 2018 and Poliemme S.r.l. had been incorporated into Coopbox Group S.p.A. in 2017.

(3)  Commission’s Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2).

(4)  Judgment of 11 July 2019, CCPL and Others v Commission, T-522/15, EU:T:2019:500, as rectified by the Order of 6 September 2019, CCPL and Others v Commission, T-522/15, EU:T:2019:599.

(5)  The General Court annulled Article 2, paragraph (1), letters (f) (g) and (h), paragraph (2), letters (d) and (e), and paragraph 4, letters (c) and (d) of the 2015 Decision.

(6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

(7)  By that letter, the Commission confirmed that the planned decision would impose fines on three entities of CCPL Group, i.e. the addressees. Concerning the remaining two entities of the CCPL Group that were addressed by the 2015 Decision, i.e. Poliemme S.r.l. and Coopbox Hispania S.l.u., the Commission stated that, because the first company had formally ceased to exist and the second company went into liquidation proceedings, these two entities would not be addressed by the planned decision.

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DECISION

of 17 December 2020

replacing the fines set by Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the extent that it concerns CCPL S.c., Coopbox Group S.p.A. and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o.

(Case AT.39563 – Retail Food Packaging)

(notified under document C(2020) 894)

(Only the English and Italian texts are authentic)

(2021/C 245/12)

On 17 December 2020, the Commission adopted a decision replacing the fines set by a previous decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 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 24 June 2015, the European Commission adopted a decision addressed to ten undertakings (eight manufacturers and two distributors) for infringing Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and, for some of the addressees, also of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposed a total amount of fines of EUR 115 865 000 (the ‘2015 Decision’). The 2015 Decision concerns polystyrene plastic trays (‘foam trays’) used for retail packaging of fresh food such as meat, poultry, fruits and fish. It finds five separate cartels each qualified as single and continuous and delineated by their geographic scope: Italy, South-West Europe (‘SWE’), North-West Europe (‘NWE’), France and Central-Eastern Europe (‘CEE’).

(2)

The 2015 Decision imposed fines totalling EUR 33 694 000 on the five addressees of the CCPL Group (2) for their participation in the infringements relating to Italy, SWE and CEE.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

(3)

On 11 July 2019, the General Court annulled the fines imposed on the addressed legal entities of the CCPL Group in their entirety (case T-522/15, ‘the 2019 Judgment’). It upheld the plea of the applicants that the Commission had insufficiently motivated its inability to pay assessment and rejected all the other pleas.

(4)

On 18 September 2019, the Commission informed CCPL that it intended to adopt a new decision imposing fines on the relevant entities of the CCPL Group for the three infringements they participated in and invited these entities to submit their observations. On 4 October 2019, CCPL submitted its observations and informed the Commission that Coopbox Hispania S.l.u. entered into liquidation in 2018 and Poliemme Srl was incorporated into Coopbox Group S.p.A. in 2017.

(5)

On 15 December 2020, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on the decision.

2.2.   Addressees and duration

(6)

The present decision is addressed to three legal entities of CCPL Group: CCPL S.c., Coopbox Group S.p.A. and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o..

(7)

As found in the 2015 Decision, these entities participated in three separate infringements of Article 101 TFEU covering the following geographic areas and periods: a) Italy: Coopbox Group S.p.A. and CCPL S.c. for the period from 18 June 2002 to 17 December 2007; b) SWE: CCPL S.c. for the period from 26 June 2002 to 13 February 2008 and; c) CEE: Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. for the period from 5 November 2004 to 24 September 2007, and CCPL S.c. for the period from 8 December 2004 to 24 September 2007.

2.3.   Summary of the infringements

(8)

The infringements are described in the 2015 Decision. The three separate cartels consisted of price increases (CEE, Italy, and SWE), market sharing (CEE and SWE), customer allocation (CEE, Italy and SWE) and bid-rigging (CEE and Italy) concerning foam trays.

2.4.   Remedies

(9)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (3) and imposes fines on the three relevant entities of CCPL Group as listed under point 2.2 above.

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

(10)

In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the undertaking’s sales of foam trays (including standard, absorbent and barrier trays) for retail food packaging in the last full business year of its participation in each of the three cartels, the fact that horizontal price-fixing, market-sharing and bid-rigging are by their very nature among the most harmful restrictions of competition, the duration of the cartels and an additional amount to deter undertakings from entering into cartel arrangements.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

(11)

The Commission did not apply any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

2.4.3.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

(12)

The fines exceed the legal maximum of 10 % of the CCPL Group’s total turnover of 2019 in respect to the infringements in Italy and SWE. Therefore, the fines for these two infringements have been reduced to that percentage.

2.4.4.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

(13)

The Commission granted reductions of 20 %, 30 % and 30 % of the fines respectively in respect to the infringements in Italy, SWE and CEE.

2.4.5.   Reduction of fines due to lapse of time

(14)

The Commission granted an exceptional 5 % reduction of the fine in each cartel to reflect the considerable duration of the proceeding and the special circumstances of this case. The reduction was applied after the application of the 10% turnover limit in order to ensure that it had an impact on the fines imposed on all addressees.

2.4.6.   Ability to Pay

(15)

CCPL requested a reduction of the fine based on point 35 of the Guidelines on Fines (‘Inability to Pay’). The decision concludes that the conditions for ‘Inability to Pay’ are not met and therefore does not reduce the fine on this basis.

3.   CONCLUSION

(16)

The following fines were imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:   For the infringement related to Italy: a) Coopbox Group S.p.A. and CCPL S.c., jointly and severally: EUR 4 627 000.   For the infringement related to SWE: a) CCPL S.c.: EUR 4 010 000.   For the infringement related to CEE: a) Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. and CCPL S.c., jointly and severally: EUR 789 000; b) Coopbox Eastern s.r.o.: EUR 15 000.

---

(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)  These entities are CCPL S.c., Coopbox Group S.p.A., Poliemme S.r.l., Coopbox Hispania S.l.u. and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o..

(3)  OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

Amendments to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice

(2021/C 245/13)

The Agreement amending Protocol 9 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, signed in Brussels on 18 November 2020, entered into force on 22 December 2020 and is applied from 1 January 2021.

This Agreement and the updated consolidated version of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice have now been published on the EFTA Secretariat’s website.

They can be found through the following links:

https://www.efta.int/Agreement-Annexes-and-Protocols-2477

and

https://www.efta.int/legal-texts/the-surveillance-and-court-agreement/amendments-protocol-9

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 245/14)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

Date of adoption of the decision	10 March 2021
Case No	86460
Decision No	016/21/COL
EFTA State	Norway
Region	Whole territory of Norway
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Amendments to the COVID-19 Grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover
Legal basis	Act on a temporary grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover after August 2020
Type of measure	Scheme
Objective	Compensate for damages to undertakings caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to secure employment and ensure a faster recovery of the economy after the crisis
Form of aid	Grants
Budget	Prior to the amendment, the estimated maximum budgetary implication of the period from 1 September 2020 to 28 February 2021 was NOK 5 billion. This comes in addition to an estimated maximum budgetary implication of NOK 30 billion for the period from 1 March to 31 August 2020. The Norwegian authorities estimate that the amendment of the adjustment factor applied for January and February 2021, will result in an increase of the estimated budgetary implication of NOK 125 million.
Intensity	100 %
Duration	The scheme, as previously prolonged, covers losses from 1 September 2020 to 28 February 2021 included
Economic sectors	All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, companies engaged in production, transmission, distribution and trade of electric power, financial institutions and companies whose main purpose is investment activities, and private kindergartens and airlines
Name and address of the granting authority	The Brønnøysund Register Centre Brønnøysundregistrene Postboks 900 N-8910 Brønnøysund NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 February 2021

in Case E-1/20

Kerim v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE)

(Freedom of movement – Directive 2004/38/EC – Abuse – Marriages of convenience – Derived rights for third-country nationals)

(2021/C 245/15)

In Case E-1/20, Kerim v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, and in particular Article 7(1)(b), read in conjunction with Article 7(2) and Article 35 thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen, and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 9 February 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

In order to determine whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, it is necessary for the national authorities to establish, on the basis of a case-by-case examination, that at least one spouse in the marriage has essentially entered into it for the purpose of improperly obtaining the right of free movement and residence by a third-country national spouse rather than for the establishment of a genuine marriage.

2.

For the determination of whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 of Directive 2004/38 exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, facts must be established and assessed in their entirety, which includes taking into account the subjective intention of an EEA national for entering into a marriage with a third-country national.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 February 2021

in Case E-5/20

SMA SA and Société Mutuelle d’Assurance du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics v Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein

(State liability – Directive 2009/138/EC – Supervisory obligations – Insurance claims – Policy holders and beneficiaries)

(2021/C 245/16)

In Case E-5/20, SMA SA and Société Mutuelle d’Assurance du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics v Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), in particular Articles 27 and 28, and its predecessors Directive 73/239/EEC, Directive 88/357/EEC and Directive 92/49/EEC, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 25 February 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), Directive 73/239/EEC, Directive 88/357/EEC and Directive 92/49/EEC do not confer any express rights on economic operators that claim to be creditors of an insurance undertaking in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings and cannot give rise to any liability claim against a supervisory authority under the principle of State liability.

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in Russia and Turkey

(2021/C 245/17)

The European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1) (‘the basic Regulation’), alleging that imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in Russia and Turkey are being dumped and are thereby causing injury (2) to the Union industry.

1.   Complaint

The complaint was lodged on 12 May 2021 by Eurofer (‘the complainant’). The complaint was made on behalf of the Union industry of certain corrosion resistant steels in the sense of Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation.

An open version of the complaint and the analysis of the degree of support by Union producers for the complaint are available in the file for inspection by interested parties. Section 5.6 of this Notice provides information about access to the file for interested parties.

2.   Product under investigation

The product subject to this investigation is flat-rolled products of iron or alloy steel or non-alloy steel; plated or coated by hot dip galvanisation with zinc and/or aluminium and/or magnesium, whether or not alloyed with silicon; chemically passivated; with or without any additional surface treatment such as oiling or sealing; containing by weight: not more than 0,5 % of carbon, not more than 1,1 % of aluminium, not more than 0,12 % of niobium, not more than 0,17 % of titanium and not more than 0,15 % of vanadium; presented in coils, cut-to-length sheets and narrow strips (‘the product under investigation’).

The following products are excluded:

—	of stainless steel, of silicon-electrical steel, and of high-speed steel,

—	not further worked than hot-rolled or cold-rolled (cold-reduced).

All interested parties wishing to submit information on the product scope must do so within 10 days of the date of publication of this Notice (3).

3.   Allegation of dumping

The product allegedly being dumped is the product under investigation, originating in Russia and Turkey (‘the countries concerned’), currently classified under CN codes ex 7210 41 00, ex 7210 49 00, ex 7210 61 00, ex 7210 69 00, ex 7210 90 80, ex 7212 30 00, ex 7212 50 61, ex 7212 50 69, ex 7212 50 90, ex 7225 92 00, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 30, ex 7226 99 70 (TARIC codes: 7210410020, 7210410030, 7210490020, 7210490030, 7210610020, 7210610030, 7210690020, 7210690030, 7210908092, 7212300020, 7212300030, 7212506120, 7212506130, 7212506920, 7212506930, 7212509014, 7212509092, 7225920020, 7225920030, 7225990022, 7225990023, 7225990041, 7225990092, 7225990093, 7226993010, 7226993030, 7226997013, 7226997093, 7226997094). The CN and TARIC codes are given for information only. The scope of this investigation is subject to the definition of the product under investigation as contained in section 2.

The allegation of dumping from the countries concerned is based on a comparison of the domestic price with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product under investigation when sold for export to the Union.

The dumping margins calculated on the basis of this comparison are significant for all the countries concerned.

4.   Allegation of injury and causation

The complainant has provided evidence that imports of the product under investigation from the countries concerned have increased overall in absolute terms and in terms of market share.

The evidence provided by the complainant shows that the volume and the prices of the imported product under investigation have had, among other consequences, a negative impact on the quantities sold, the level of prices charged and the market share held by the Union industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance and the financial situation of the Union industry.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after informing the Member States, that the complaint has been lodged by or on behalf of the Union industry and that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a proceeding, the Commission hereby initiates an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.

The investigation will determine whether the product under investigation originating in the countries concerned is being dumped and whether the dumped imports have caused injury to the Union industry.

If the conclusions are affirmative, the investigation will examine whether the imposition of measures would not be against the Union interest under Article 21 of the basic Regulation.

The Commission also draws the attention of the parties to the published Notice (4) on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations that may be applicable to this proceeding.

5.1.    Investigation period and period considered

The investigation of dumping and injury will cover the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury will cover the period from 1 January 2017 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

5.2.    Comments on the complaint and the initiation of the investigation

All interested parties wishing to comment on the complaint (including matters pertaining to injury and causality) or any aspects regarding the initiation of the investigation (including the degree of support for the complaint) must do so within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice.

Any request for a hearing with regard to the initiation of the investigation must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice.

5.3.    Procedure for the determination of dumping

Exporting producers (5) of the product under investigation from the countries concerned are invited to participate in the Commission investigation.

5.3.1.   Investigating exporting producers

5.3.1.1.   Procedure for selecting exporting producers to be investigated in the countries concerned

(a)   Sampling

In view of the potentially large number of exporting producers in the countries concerned involved in this proceeding and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission may limit the exporting producers to be investigated to a reasonable number by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling will be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary, and if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are requested to provide the Commission with information on their company(ies) within 7 days of the date of publication of this Notice. This information must be provided via TRON.tdi (‘TRON’) at the following address: https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/tron/tdi/form/AD682_SAMPLING_FORM_FOR_EXPORTING_PRODUCER. TRON access information can be found in sections 5.6 and 5.8 below.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of exporting producers, the Commission has also contacted the authorities of the countries concerned and may contact any known associations of exporting producers.

If a sample is necessary, the exporting producers may be selected based on the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. All known exporting producers, the authorities of the countries concerned and associations of exporting producers will be notified by the Commission, via the authorities of the countries concerned if appropriate, of the companies selected to be in the sample.

Once the Commission has received the necessary information to select a sample of exporting producers, it will inform the parties concerned of its decision whether they are included in the sample. The sampled exporting producers will have to submit a completed questionnaire within 30 days from the date of notification of the decision of their inclusion in the sample, unless otherwise specified.

The Commission will add a note reflecting the sample selection to the file for inspection by interested parties. Any comment on the sample selection must be received within 3 days of the date of notification of the sample decision.

A copy of the questionnaire for exporting producers 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=2531).

The questionnaire will also be made available to any known association of exporting producers, and to the authorities of those countries.

Without prejudice to the possible application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, exporting producers that have agreed to be included in the sample but are not selected as part of the sample will be considered to be cooperating (‘non-sampled cooperating exporting producers’). Without prejudice to section 5.3.1.1(b) below, the anti-dumping duty that may be applied to imports from non-sampled cooperating exporting producers will not exceed the weighted average margin of dumping established for the exporting producers in the sample (6).

(b)   Individual dumping margin for exporting producers not included in the sample

Pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, non-sampled cooperating exporting producers may request the Commission to establish their individual dumping margins. Exporting producers wishing to claim an individual dumping margin must fill in the questionnaire and return it duly completed within 30 days of the date of notification of the sample selection, unless otherwise specified. A copy of the questionnaire for exporting producers 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=2531).The Commission will examine whether non-sampled cooperating exporting producers can be granted an individual duty in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.

However, non-sampled cooperating exporting producers claiming an individual dumping margin should be aware that the Commission may nonetheless decide not to determine their individual dumping margin if, for instance, the number of non-sampled cooperating exporting producers is so large that such determination would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the timely completion of the investigation.

5.3.2.   Investigating unrelated importers (7) (8)

Unrelated importers of the product under investigation from the countries concerned to the Union are invited to participate in this investigation.

In view of the potentially large number of unrelated importers involved in this proceeding and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission may limit to a reasonable number the unrelated importers that will be investigated by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling will be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all unrelated importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are requested to provide the Commission with the information on their company(ies) requested in the Annex to this Notice within 7 days of the date of publication of this Notice.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of unrelated importers, the Commission may also contact any known associations of importers.

If a sample is necessary, the importers may be selected based on the largest representative volume of sales of the product under investigation in the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available.

Once the Commission has received the necessary information to select a sample, it will inform the parties concerned of its decision on the sample of importers. The Commission will also add a note reflecting the sample selection to the file for inspection by interested parties. Any comment on the sample selection must be received within 3 days from the notification of the sample decision.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will make available questionnaires to the sampled unrelated importers. Those parties must submit a completed questionnaire within 30 days from the date of the notification of the decision about the sample, unless otherwise specified.

A copy of the questionnaire for importers 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=2531).

5.4.    Procedure for the determination of injury and investigating Union producers

A determination of injury is based on positive evidence and involves an objective examination of the volume of the dumped imports, their effect on prices on the Union market and the consequent impact of those imports on the Union industry. In order to establish whether the Union industry is injured, Union producers of the product under investigation are invited to participate in the Commission investigation.

In view of the large number of Union producers concerned and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission has decided to limit to a reasonable number the Union producers that will be investigated by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling is carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

The Commission has provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. Details can be found in the file for inspection by interested parties. Interested parties are invited to comment on the provisional sample. In addition, other Union producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, who consider that there are reasons why they should be included in the sample must contact the Commission within 7 days of the date of publication of this Notice. All comments regarding the provisional sample must be received within 7 days of the date of publication of this Notice, unless otherwise specified.

All known Union producers and associations of Union producers will be notified by the Commission of the companies finally selected to be in the sample.

The sampled Union producers will have to submit a completed questionnaire within 30 days from the date of notification of the decision of their inclusion in the sample, unless otherwise specified.

A copy of the questionnaire for Union producers 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=2531).

5.5.    Procedure for the assessment of Union interest

Should the existence of dumping and injury caused be established, a decision will be reached, pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, as to whether the adoption of anti-dumping measures would not be against the Union interest. Union producers, importers and their representative associations, users and their representative associations, trade unions and representative consumer organisations are invited to provide the Commission with information as to whether the imposition of measures is not against the Union interest. In order to participate in the investigation, the representative consumer organisations have to demonstrate that there is an objective link between their activities and the product under investigation.

Information concerning the assessment of Union interest must be provided within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice unless otherwise specified. This information may be provided either in a free format or by completing a questionnaire prepared by the Commission. A copy of the questionnaires, including the questionnaire for users of the product under investigation, 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=2531). The information submitted pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

5.6.    Interested parties

In order to participate in the investigation interested parties, such as exporting producers, Union producers, importers and their representative associations, users and their representative associations, trade unions and representative consumer organisations must demonstrate that there is an objective link between their activities and the product under investigation.

Exporting producers, Union producers, importers and representative associations who made information available in accordance to the procedures described in sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 above will be considered as interested parties if there is an objective link between their activities and the product under investigation.

Other 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 investigation. Being considered as an interested party is without prejudice to the application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Access to the file available for inspection for interested parties is made via TRON.tdi at the following address: https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/tron/TDI. Please follow the instructions on that page to get access. (9)

5.7.    Possibility to be heard by the Commission investigation services

All interested parties may request to be heard by the Commission’s investigation services.

Any request for a hearing 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.

The timeframe for hearings is as follows:

—	For any hearings to take place before the deadline for the imposition of provisional measures, a request should be made within 15 days from the date of publication of this Notice. The hearing will normally take place within 60 days of the date of publication of this Notice.

—

After the stage of provisional findings, a request should be made within 5 days from the date of the disclosure of the provisional findings or of the information document. The hearing will normally take place within 15 days from the date of notification of the disclosure or the date of the information document.

—

At the stage of definitive findings, a request should be made within 3 days from the date of the final disclosure. The hearing will normally take place within the period granted to comment on the final disclosure. If there is an additional final disclosure, a request should be made immediately upon receipt of this additional final disclosure. The hearing will then normally take place within the deadline to provide comments on this disclosure.

The outlined timeframe is without prejudice to the right of the Commission services to accept hearings outside the timeframe in duly justified cases and to the right of the Commission to deny hearings in duly justified cases. Where the Commission services refuse a hearing request, the party concerned will be informed of the reasons for such refusal.

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.

5.8.    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’ (10). 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 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’. Those summaries should 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 DG 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

Email for dumping aspects Russia:

TRADE-AD682-CRS-DUMPING-Russia@ec.europa.eu

Email for dumping aspects Turkey:

TRADE-AD682-CRS-DUMPING-Turkey@ec.europa.eu

Email for injury and Union interest aspects:

TRADE-AD682-CRS-INJURY@ec.europa.eu

6.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation within normally 13, but not more than 14 months of the date of the publication of this Notice. In accordance with Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may be imposed normally not later than 7 months, but in any event not later than 8 months from the publication of this Notice.

In accordance with Article 19a of the basic Regulation, the Commission will provide information on the planned imposition of provisional duties 4 weeks before the imposition of provisional measures. Interested parties will be given 3 working days to comment in writing on the accuracy of the calculations.

In cases where the Commission intends not to impose provisional duties but to continue the investigation, interested parties will be informed, by means of an information document, of the non-imposition of duties 4 weeks before the expiry of the deadline under Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation.

Interested parties will be given 15 days to comment in writing on the provisional findings or on the information document, and 10 days to comment in writing on the definitive findings, unless otherwise specified. Where applicable, additional final disclosures will specify the deadline for interested parties to comment in writing.

7.   Submission of information

As a rule, interested parties may only submit information in the timeframes specified in sections 5 and 6 of this Notice. The submission of any other information not covered by those sections, should respect the following timetable:

—	Any information for the stage of provisional findings should be submitted within 70 days from the date of publication of this Notice, unless otherwise specified.

—

Unless otherwise specified, interested parties should not submit new factual information after the deadline to comment on the disclosure of the provisional findings or the information document at the stage of provisional findings. After this deadline, interested parties may only submit new factual information if they can demonstrate that such new factual information is necessary to rebut factual allegations made by other interested parties and provided that such new factual information can be verified within the time available to complete the investigation in a timely manner.

—	In order to complete the investigation within the mandatory deadlines, the Commission will not accept submissions from interested parties after the deadline to provide comments on the final disclosure or, if applicable, after the deadline to provide comments on the additional final disclosure.

8.   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.

Such comments should be made according to the following timeframe:

—	Any comment on information submitted by other interested parties before the deadline of imposition of provisional measures should be made at the latest on day 75 from the date of publication of this Notice, unless otherwise specified.

—

Comments on the information provided by other interested parties in reaction to the disclosure of the provisional findings or of the information document should be submitted within 7 days from the deadline to comment on the provisional findings or on the information document, unless otherwise specified.

—

Comments on the information provided by other interested parties in reaction to the final disclosure should be submitted within 3 days from the deadline to comment on the final disclosure, unless otherwise specified. If there is an additional final disclosure, comments on the information provided by other interested parties in reaction to this disclosure should be made within 1 day from the deadline to comment on this 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.

9.   Extension to time limits specified in this Notice

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 upon good cause being shown.

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.

10.   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, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic 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 18 of the basic 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. In this case the interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

11.   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 or parties and the Commission 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.

Interested parties are invited to follow the timeframes set out in section 5.7 of this Notice also as regards interventions, including hearings, by the Hearing Officer. 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. The Hearing Officer will examine the reasons for requests for interventions, 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/.

12.   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 (11).

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. 21.

(2)  The general term ‘injury’ refers to material injury as well as to threat of material injury or material retardation of the establishment of an industry as set out in Article 3(1) of the basic Regulation.

(3)  References to the publication of this Notice mean publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

(5)  An exporting producer is any company in the countries concerned which produces and exports the product under investigation to the Union market, either directly or via a third party, including any of its related companies involved in the production, domestic sales or exports of the product under investigation.

(6)  Pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, any zero and de minimis margins, and margins established in accordance with the circumstances described in Article 18 of the basic Regulation will be disregarded.

(7)  This section covers only importers not related to exporting producers. Importers that are related to exporting producers have to fill in Annex I to the questionnaire for these exporting producers. In accordance with Article 127 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code, two persons shall be deemed to be related if: (a) they are officers or directors of the other person’s business; (b) they are legally recognised partners in business; (c) they are employer and employee; (d) a third party directly or indirectly owns, controls or holds 5 % or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of both of them; (e) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; (f) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; (g) together they control a third person directly or indirectly; or (h) they are members of the same family (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558). Persons shall be deemed to be members of the same family only if they stand in any of the following relationships to one another: (i) husband and wife, (ii) parent and child, (iii) brother and sister (whether by whole or half blood), (iv) grandparent and grandchild, (v) uncle or aunt and nephew or niece, (vi) parent-in-law and son-in-law or daughter-in-law, (vii) brother-in-law and sister-in-law. In accordance with Article 5(4) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code, ‘person’ means a natural person, a legal person, and any association of persons which is not a legal person but which is recognised under Union or national law as having the capacity to perform legal acts (OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).

(8)  The data provided by unrelated importers may also be used in relation to aspects of this investigation other than the determination of dumping.

(9)  In case of technical problems please contact the Trade Service Desk by email trade-service-desk@ec.europa.eu or by Tel. +32 22979797.

(10)  A ‘Sensitive’ document is a document which is considered confidential pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping 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).

(11)  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.10318 — Apollo Management/Verizon Media Group)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/18)

---

(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.10252 — Transgourmet Group/General Markets Food Iberica)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/19)

---

(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.10263 — Ardian/Deli Home)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/20)

---

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

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2021/C 245/21)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1)

NOTIFICATION OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT TO THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Etyek-Buda/Etyek-Budai’

PDO-HU-A1350-AM03

Date of communication: 1 April 2021

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Expansion of the demarcated area – Biatorbágy

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area — VIII. Further conditions

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area — Further conditions

(c)	Justification:

The amendment of the demarcated area does not affect the link between the production area and the product, because the characteristics of the areas included in the vineyard cadastre correspond to the demarcated area of the Etyek-Buda PDO. The classification of the wine region and the possibility to produce the Etyek-Buda PDO makes it possible for Biatorbágy to market these wines in a higher quality category, which may act as an incentive for more producers to enter the market and for the production of higher quality wine and help develop the local tourism and hospitality sector.

2.   Expansion of the demarcated area – Budapest District XII, land registry No 9597/1

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area

(c)	Justification:

The amendment of the demarcated area does not affect the link between the production area and the product, because the characteristics of the area included in the vineyard cadastre correspond to the demarcated area of the Etyek-Buda PDO.

3.   Expansion of the demarcated area – Aba, Seregélyes

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area — VIII. Further conditions

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area — Further conditions

(c)	Justification:

The two municipalities are located on the southern side of Lake Velence and have the same natural and climatic conditions and soil structure as the adjacent municipalities already included in the Etyek-Buda PDO product specification. The amendment of the demarcated area does not affect the link between the production area and the product, because the characteristics of the area included in the vineyard cadastre correspond to the demarcated area of the Etyek-Buda PDO.

4.   Expansion of the demarcated area – Tabajd

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area — VIII. Further conditions

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area — Further conditions

(c)	Justification:

The village of Tabajd and its administrative area are located in the northern part of Fejér County. Rolling hills and flat areas alternate on the outskirts of the municipality. The conditions here are excellent for the production of light, harmonious Muscat wines and sparkling wines and other white wine varieties. The amendment of the demarcated area does not affect the link between the production area and the product, because the characteristics of the area included in the vineyard cadastre correspond to the demarcated area of the Etyek-Buda PDO.

5.   Expansion of the demarcated area – Perbál

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area — VIII. Further conditions

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area — Further conditions

(c)	Justification:

Perbál is located on the slopes of the Buda and Nyakas Hills in the Zsámbék Basin. Grapes for producing quality wines have been grown in the municipality for centuries now.

The amendment of the demarcated area does not affect the link between the production area and the product, because the characteristics of the area included in the vineyard cadastre correspond to the demarcated area of the Etyek-Buda PDO.

6.   Addition of new slopes (Páty)

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area

(c)	Justification:

At the request of the municipality of Páty, five slopes (Hegyi-dűlő, Lövöldöző-hegy, Mézes-hegy, Nagy-hegy, Zsámbéki úti dűlő) have been added to the product specification. There is a long-standing tradition of winemaking on the Mézes-hegy and Nagy-hegy slopes, which form the bulk of the Páty vineyard area. Hegyi-dűlő and Lövöldöző-hegy lie between the magnificent cellar rows of Páty and Mézes-hegy, on a gentle south-western slope, enjoying a magnificent setting. Zsámbéki úti dűlő is a gentle western/south-western slope. By including the names of the slopes on which these select wines are produced, quality wines from a more narrowly defined area can be presented on the market.

7.   Addition of a new slope (Tök)

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area

(c)	Justification:

At the request of the Nyakas Wine Community, a new slope name (Felső-somos) has been added to the product specification. Prior to large-scale operation, the Somos/Felső-somos slope was divided into small, privately owned vineyards. This slope is classified as Class I in the vineyard cadastre. The area has been under vines again since 2015, producing excellent grapes for winemaking.

8.   Addition of a new slope (Etyek)

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area

(c)	Justification:

Right up until his death in 2004, Tibor Báthori was an eminent figure in the Etyek-Buda wine region. He did much for the wine region and its wines, especially when it came to promoting awareness of Etyek Chardonnay. In 1992, he was voted winegrower of the year. A commemorative plaque in honour of Tibor Báthori has been unveiled in Etyek, and his name has been given to a slope – Báthori-dűlő – in the part of Öreg-hegy where his cellar was located.

9.   Not compulsory to indicate the vintage on Etyek-Buda PDO wines

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area

(c)	Justification:

To offset vintage effects. It is much easier to ensure consistent quality when blending wines without indicating the vintage. Indicating the vintage does not change the effect of the characteristics of the production area on the product, so this amendment would not fundamentally alter the nature of Etyek-Buda PDO wines.

10.   Use of the expression ‘Velencei-tavi’ [Lake Velence] in the case of wines produced in the Velence district

(a)	Product specification headings affected: — IV. Demarcated area

(b)	Single document headings affected: — Demarcated geographical area

(c)	Justification:

Rather than designating a new product, the expression ‘Velencei-tavi’ [Lake Velence] replaces the expression ‘Velencei’ [Velence] used until now. The new expression can appear on wine products that comply with the rules of the product specification and are made from grapes from any of the municipalities of the Lake Velence Wine Community.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name(s)

Etyek-Buda

Etyek-Budai

2.   Geographical indication type:

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

1.

Wine

4.	Sparkling wine

5.	Quality sparkling wine

4.   Description of the wines

1.   Wine – White

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

The white wines range in colour from greenish yellow to golden yellow. These are delicate wines of a high aroma intensity with notes of white flowers (elderflower, linden blossom, acacia) and fruity notes (white-fleshed peach). On the palate, their fresh fruitiness is complemented by a pronounced yet mature and elegant acidity.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9
Minimum total acidity:	4,6 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

2.   Wine – Fresh

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

These white wines range in colour from greenish yellow to straw-yellow, with aromas characterised by freshness and a fruity lightness. Made by blending several varieties of grape, these wines have a fresh, pronounced yet mature acidity, complemented by fruitiness.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9
Minimum total acidity:	4,6 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

3.   Wine – Rosé

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

The rosé wines range in colour from salmon to bright red. Their intense, complex aromas are characterised by the fragrances of red-fleshed fruits (blackberries, raspberries). On the palate, they are fruity and fresh thanks to mature acids, which are accompanied by elegant tannins.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9
Minimum total acidity:	4,6 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

4.   Wine – Red

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

The red wines range in colour from crimson to ruby red. These are fruity wines with fragrances of red-fleshed fruits (blackberry, sour cherry, raspberry). The medium tannin and alcoholic strength give the red wines a light taste. Their acids sit harmoniously with the fruity flavours (blackberry, raspberry, blackcurrant, redcurrant, sour cherry).

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9
Minimum total acidity:	4,6 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	20
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

5.   Sparkling wine – White

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

These pale-green wines have a crystal sparkle and a fragrance that is always fresh and slightly aromatic thanks to the diversity of varieties. On the palate, the mature acid structure dominates, the style of the acids is fresh and crispy yet airy, accompanied by a steely texture. Etyek-Buda white sparkling wines have a unique complexity of aromas and tastes thanks to the diversity of varieties, and a vigorous acidity, which is accompanied at all times by a fruity taste.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9,5
Minimum total acidity:	5 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

6.   Sparkling wine – Rosé

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

The wines have few colour components, but will invariably have a bright-salmon and onion-peel colour, with a shiny, purply hue. The aroma of Etyek-Buda sparkling wines is characterised by the intense fruitiness of red fruits (cherry, sour cherry), which continues on the palate. Highly acidic, the taste of Etyek-Buda rosé sparkling wines is characterised by mature acids, with no trace of bitterness or tartness.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9,5
Minimum total acidity:	5 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

7.   Quality sparkling wine – White

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

The white quality sparkling wines are a pale-green colour, with a tinge of golden yellow. The aromas of white-fleshed fruits (peach, nectarine, apple, pear, lychee) dominate, complemented by roasted, biscuity notes as a result of lengthy maturation. Despite having a high degree of acidity, the acids of Etyek-Buda white quality sparkling wines are not sharp and fit well into the texture of a quality sparkling wine. As well as preserving their creamy flavour, which develops during maturation, Etyek-Buda white quality sparkling wines also retain their characteristic flavour of white-fleshed fruits.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	10
Minimum total acidity:	4,6 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

8.   Quality sparkling wine – Rosé

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

These wines are salmon-coloured, with tinges of pink and purple. Their medium-intensity aromas of red-fleshed fruits (cherries, sour cherries, blueberries, blackberries) are complemented by notes of toasted hazelnut that develop during maturation. In addition to an acidity that forms the backbone of these wines, the flavours of red fruits also dominate.

*

The limits laid down in the EU legislation apply to the maximum total alcoholic strength and maximum total sulphur dioxide.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	9,5
Minimum total acidity:	4,6 g/l expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

5.   Wine-making practices

5.1.   Specific oenological practices

Restriction for certain wines

Relevant restriction on making the wines

In the case of the wines, it is forbidden to enrich or sweeten white, rosé or red wines indicating the expression ‘késői szüretelésű bor’ [late-harvest wine], ‘jégbor’ [ice wine], ‘válogatott szüretelésű bor’ [selected-harvest wine], ‘töppedt szőlőből készült bor’ [wine made from raisined grapes], or the slope name.

In the case of the fresh wines, the blend must include a minimum of two and a maximum of four varieties.

Rules of viticulture

Cultivation practice

Cultivation method:

For vineyards planted before 1 August 2010, a vineyard using any cultivation method authorised in the past will be accepted, as long as production is continued in the vineyard.

For vineyards planted after 1 August 2010: umbrella, Moser, Sylvoz, low, medium-high and branch cordon, Guyot, single curtain, head- and gobelet training

Planting density: For vineyards planted before 1 August 2010, a vineyard using any planting density authorised in the past will be accepted, as long as production is continued in the vineyard. For vineyards planted after 1 August 2010: min. 3 300 vines per hectare.

Method of harvesting: manual and mechanical, except for wines indicating the expression ‘válogatott szüretelésű bor’ [selected-harvest wine], ‘jégbor’ [ice wine], or ‘töppedt szőlőből készült bor’ [wine made from raisined grapes], or quality sparkling wines indicating the expression ‘crémant’, which may be harvested manually only.

Setting the date of the harvest: The date on which harvesting begins is set by the Council of Wine Communities of the Etyek-Buda Wine Region each year. The decision is published by the Council of Wine Communities in accordance with its statutes.

Minimum sugar content of grapes (expressed in natural alcoholic strength and Hungarian must grade (MM))

Cultivation practice

Minimum natural sugar content of the grapes (g/l):

—	for wines indicating the slope name: 193,6,

—	for wines of the fresh-wine type: 168,1,

—	in all other cases: 151,5. Minimum potential alcoholic strength of the grapes (in % volume), at 20 °C:

—	for wines indicating the slope name: 11,5,

—	for wines of the fresh-wine type: 10,0,

—	in all other cases: 9,0.

5.2.   Maximum yields

Wine, sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine – manual and mechanical harvesting

100 hectolitres per hectare

Wines indicating the slope name – manual and mechanical harvesting

80 hectolitres per hectare

Wine, sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine – manual harvesting

13 600 kg of grapes per hectare

Wine, sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine – mechanical harvesting

13 100 kg of grapes per hectare

Wines indicating the slope name – manual harvesting

11 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Wines indicating the slope name – mechanical harvesting

10 500 kg of grapes per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

Definition of the demarcated area:

Areas of:

—	Budapest (District XII, land registry No 9597/1, District XXII – Budafok)

—	the municipalities in Pest County of Biatorbágy, Budajenő, Budakeszi, Páty, Perbál, Pilisborosjenő, Üröm, Telki and Tök, and

—	the municipalities in Fejér County of Aba, Alcsútdoboz, Bicske, Csabdi, Etyek, Felcsút, Gárdony, Gyúró, Kajászó, Kápolnásnyék, Martonvásár, Nadap, Pákozd, Pázmánd, Seregélyes, Sukoró, Tabajd, Tordas, Vál and Velence

that are classified as Class I or II according to the vineyard cadastre.

7.   Main grape variety (varieties)

budai - budai zöld

budai - zöld budai

budai - zöldfehér

budai - zöldszőlő

cabernet franc - cabernet

cabernet franc - carbonet

cabernet franc - carmenet

cabernet franc - gros cabernet

cabernet franc - gros vidur

cabernet franc - kaberne fran

cabernet sauvignon

chardonnay - chardonnay blanc

chardonnay - kereklevelű

chardonnay - morillon blanc

chardonnay - ronci bilé

chasselas - chasselas blanc

chasselas - chasselas dorato

chasselas - chasselas doré

chasselas - chrupka belia

chasselas - fehér fábiánszőlő

chasselas - fehér gyöngyszőlő

chasselas - fendant blanc

chasselas - saszla belaja

chasselas - weisser gutedel

cserszegi fűszeres

csókaszőlő

ezerfürtű

ezerjó - kolmreifler

ezerjó - korponai

ezerjó - szadocsina

ezerjó - tausendachtgute

ezerjó - tausendgute

ezerjó - trummertraube

furmint - furmint bianco

furmint - moslavac bijeli

furmint - mosler

furmint - posipel

furmint - som

furmint - szigeti

furmint - zapfner

gohér - guhér

gohér - körteszőlő

gohér - sárga gohér

gohér - török gohér

gohér - zöld gohér

hárslevelű - feuilles de tilleul

hárslevelű - garszleveljü

hárslevelű - lindeblättrige

hárslevelű - lipovina

irsai olivér - irsai

irsai olivér - muskat olivér

irsai olivér - zolotis

irsai olivér - zolotisztüj rannüj

juhfark - fehérboros

juhfark - lämmerschwantz

juhfark - mohácsi

juhfark - tarpai

kadarka - csetereska

kadarka - fekete budai

kadarka - gamza

kadarka - jenei fekete

kadarka - kadar

kadarka - kadarka negra

kadarka - negru moale

kadarka - szkadarka

kadarka - törökszőlő

karát

királyleányka - dánosi leányka

királyleányka - erdei sárga

királyleányka - feteasca regale

királyleányka - galbena de ardeal

királyleányka - königliche mädchentraube

királyleányka - königstochter

királyleányka - little princess

kék bakator

kékfrankos - blauer lemberger

kékfrankos - blauer limberger

kékfrankos - blaufränkisch

kékfrankos - limberger

kékfrankos - moravka

kéknyelű - blaustängler

kékoportó - blauer portugieser

kékoportó - modry portugal

kékoportó - portugais bleu

kékoportó - portugalske modré

kékoportó - portugizer

merlot

mátrai muskotály

olasz rizling - grasevina

olasz rizling - nemes rizling

olasz rizling - olaszrizling

olasz rizling - riesling italien

olasz rizling - risling vlassky

olasz rizling - taljanska grasevina

olasz rizling - welschrieslig

ottonel muskotály - miszket otonel

ottonel muskotály - muscat ottonel

ottonel muskotály - muskat ottonel

pinot blanc - fehér burgundi

pinot blanc - pinot beluj

pinot blanc - pinot bianco

pinot blanc - weissburgunder

pinot noir - blauer burgunder

pinot noir - kisburgundi kék

pinot noir - kék burgundi

pinot noir - kék rulandi

pinot noir - pignula

pinot noir - pino csernüj

pinot noir - pinot cernii

pinot noir - pinot nero

pinot noir - pinot tinto

pinot noir - rulandski modre

pinot noir - savagnin noir

pinot noir - spätburgunder

pintes

piros bakator - bakar rózsa

piros bakator - bakator rouge

piros bakator - bakatortraube

rajnai rizling - johannisberger

rajnai rizling - rheinriesling

rajnai rizling - rhine riesling

rajnai rizling - riesling

rajnai rizling - riesling blanc

rajnai rizling - weisser riesling

rizlingszilváni - müller thurgau

rizlingszilváni - müller thurgau bijeli

rizlingszilváni - müller thurgau blanc

rizlingszilváni - rivaner

rizlingszilváni - rizvanac

sauvignon - sauvignon bianco

sauvignon - sauvignon bijeli

sauvignon - sauvignon blanc

sauvignon - sovinjon

syrah - blauer syrah

syrah - marsanne noir

syrah - serine noir

syrah - shiraz

syrah - sirac

szürkebarát - auvergans gris

szürkebarát - grauburgunder

szürkebarát - graumönch

szürkebarát - pinot grigio

szürkebarát - pinot gris

szürkebarát - ruländer

sárfehér

sárga muskotály - moscato bianco

sárga muskotály - muscat blanc

sárga muskotály - muscat bélüj

sárga muskotály - muscat de frontignan

sárga muskotály - muscat de lunel

sárga muskotály - muscat lunel

sárga muskotály - muscat sylvaner

sárga muskotály - muscat zlty

sárga muskotály - muskat weisser

sárga muskotály - weiler

sárga muskotály - weisser

tramini - gewürtztraminer

tramini - roter traminer

tramini - savagnin rose

tramini - tramin cervené

tramini - traminer

tramini - traminer rosso

viognier

zefír

zengő

zenit

zweigelt - blauer zweigeltrebe

zweigelt - rotburger

zweigelt - zweigeltrebe

zöld szilváni - grüner sylvaner

zöld szilváni - silvanec zeleni

zöld szilváni - sylvánske zelené

zöld veltelíni - grüner muskateller

zöld veltelíni - grüner veltliner

zöld veltelíni - veltlinské zelené

zöld veltelíni - zöldveltelíni

8.   Description of the link(s)

8.1.   Wine, sparkling wine, quality sparkling wine – Natural factors

The demarcated area for the production of Etyek-Buda wines lies in the north-eastern part of the Central Transdanubian Uplands and extends from the southern part of the Gerecse Uplands to the Velence and Buda Hills, on the slopes and plateaus of which the grapes are grown. The production area is located at the northern edge of the winegrowing region, at 47 degrees latitude.

The dominant soil type for Etyek-Buda is copper-rich brown forest soil, which developed largely on a limestone base.

With its northerly location and hilly landscape, the climate of Etyek-Buda is cooler than the Hungarian average, the annual temperature here averaging 9,5–10,5 °C. Average annual precipitation stands at 650 mm, most of which falls during the vegetation period.

A common feature of the climate of Etyek-Buda is the constant wind throughout the wine region. The prevailing winds are north-westerly, which invariably bring cool air masses to the wine region.

8.2.   Wine – Human factors (1)

Viticulture and viniculture have been well-established in Etyek-Buda since the time of the Árpád dynasty, and the development of what are now traditional viticultural and vinicultural processes was greatly influenced by historical upheavals and the settlement of various linguistic minorities in the region. Each ethnic group brought its own unique winegrowing culture, enriching the diversity of Etyek-Buda. This diversity is best symbolised by the large number of varieties grown here, which have acclimatised to the region over the centuries. The use of a large number of varieties is explained by the fact that local producers, keen to mitigate vintage effects, have been able to produce the quality of raw material required for the production of high-quality wines.

The first Magyar settlers played a key role in developing the diversity of varieties, by bringing to Etyek-Buda grape varieties that would be selected by local producers over the millennium. Numerous descendants of these varieties are grown in the region to this day, most notably Juhfark.

8.3.   Wine – Human factors (2)

Following the Ottoman occupation, the German-speaking settlers introduced a red-grape variety, Kékoportó (in German ‘Portugieser’), to the region, and with it the process of maceration for the production of red wine.

Following the phylloxera epidemic, local winemakers introduced western varieties that adapted well to local ecological conditions and brought out the unique characteristics of the Etyek-Buda production area in the wines made from those varieties. The late 19th and early 20th century saw the introduction of the Olaszrizling, Szürkebarát and the now predominant Chardonnay varieties.

In the 20th century, local winegrowers began to focus increasingly on aromatic varieties such as Sauvignon and Ottonel muskotály. Of these, several newly bred varieties selected according to local ecological conditions entered into production (e.g. Irsai Olivér, Zenit).

As aromatic varieties have gained ground, fast, anaerobic technology has become predominant in the wine region.

8.4.   Wine – Description of the wines

A common feature of Etyek-Buda wines is their richness of aromas and flavours. Both their taste and aroma are characterised by a resounding fruitiness, the complexity of which is complemented by the minerality of Etyek-Buda wines. Despite their high degree of acidity, their acids are mature and fresh, which gives Etyek-Buda wines their freshness.

8.5.   Wine – Link between the production area, human factors and the product (1)

The cool climate of Etyek-Buda due to its mountainous exposure is intensified by the north-westerly air currents that ensure a constant movement of air in the wine region. In the summer heat, the acids of the grapes remain lively thanks to the fresh breezes. Due to the constant movement of air and the low cultivation methods that have developed over the centuries, the foliage wall is easily penetrated by the wind. This helps prevent the development of fungal infections on the vines and allows the grapes to be harvested healthy and intact. During the typically cool dawns of autumn, the grapes cool down, which allows them to be processed at lower temperatures.

These natural factors contribute to the fruitiness and fresh acid structure of Etyek-Buda wines, as the oxidation processes are slower during transport and processing in the case of grapes harvested at low temperatures.

8.6.   Wine – Link between the production area, human factors and the product (2)

This natural effect is enhanced by a centuries-old practice in the wine region in which the grapes are processed as quickly as possible after harvesting. This practice forms part of the experience and expertise of local winemakers that guarantee the quality of Etyek-Buda wines.

Thanks to the water-retaining capacity of the brown forest soils, the vines have sufficient water supply even in the summer heat. On the slopes and hillsides, sunlight enters the soil surface and the vines at a greater angle of incidence. The combination of these two natural factors guarantees the continuous, balanced development of the vines. Thanks to the typically high foliage wall, the factors that inhibit photosynthesis are uncommon, so the grapes can be harvested earlier, with a high sugar content.

8.7.   Sparkling wine and quality sparkling wine – Human factors (1)

The development of sparkling-wine production in Etyek-Buda, in which viticulture and viniculture have been well-established since the time of the Árpád dynasty, can be traced back to the end of the 19th century. The history of sparkling wine production in Etyek-Buda is closely linked to the name of the sparkling wine producer József Törley, who, based on the areas he purchased in the second half of the 19th century, set up a champagne-type sparkling wine production plant in Etyek-Buda in 1882. He realised that grapes from Etyek made an excellent base for sparkling wine and that the cellars of Budafok (Promontorium) were well-suited to sparkling wine production.

The flourishing of winemaking in Etyek-Buda can be attributed to this, so that by the early 1910s, as many as two million bottles of sparkling wine were being produced from Etyek-Buda wines.

In addition to József Törley, his master in sparkling wine production Louis François – who would go on to found his own sparkling wine plant in Etyek-Buda – also played a key role in developing the tradition of sparkling wine production in Etyek-Buda.

After the Second World War, the Hungarovin winery in Budafok became the centre of sparkling wine production. The production of sparkling wine was given further impetus by the introduction, alongside the traditional production method, of a decanting and container-based production process. Nowadays, the legal successor of Hungarovin, Törley Pezsgőpincészet, which has the largest winegrowing area in the region, continues these sparkling wine-growing traditions by adapting its techniques to the quality requirements of sparkling wine production and applying all three production methods.

8.8.   Sparkling wine – Human factors (2)

The uniqueness of sparkling wine production in Etyek-Buda lies in the varietal composition. The unique and essential feature of Etyek-Buda sparkling wines is their wide variation of varieties. The world’s main sparkling wine-producing regions are characterised by the fact that only a few grape varieties have taken root there, especially those that have been able to adapt to the very specific climate conditions. Each of the white grape varieties permitted in the Etyek-Buda wine region is well-suited to the production of white sparkling wine. That said, the leading varieties are Chardonnay, Chasselas, Zöld veltelíni, Olaszrizling and Mézesfehér, which account for 60 % of the total vineyard area. The use of a large number of varieties is explained by the fact that local producers, keen to mitigate vintage effects, have always managed to produce the quality of raw material required for the production of high-quality base wines. Having listed the white grape varieties, the importance of red grape varieties – including Pinot noir, which is the perfect raw material for both white and rosé sparkling wines – should not be overlooked.

8.9.   Sparkling wine – Description of the wines

A common feature of Etyek-Buda sparkling wines is their richness of aromas and flavours, as well as their freshness. Both their taste and aroma are characterised by a resounding fruitiness and complexity.

The acids are fresh and crispy yet airy, accompanied by a steely texture.

8.10.   Sparkling wine – Link between the production area, human factors and the product (1)

The three techniques for the production of Etyek-Buda sparkling wines have always used a wide range of varieties, ensuring that sparkling wines with different styles and sugar contents can be made from these grape varieties.

The limestone-rich soils contribute, alongside the climate, to the high degree of acidity of the base wines, which is optimal for the production of sparkling wines. The annual precipitation is sufficient to ensure the grapes mature at the right pace, but not high enough to cause fungal infections on the grapes.

The near-constant winds that blow over the gentle slopes help even the wet grapes to dry and any spraying activity to be more effective. During the typically cool dawns of autumn, the grapes cool down, which allows them to be processed at lower temperatures.

These natural factors contribute to the fruitiness and fresh acid structure of Etyek-Buda sparkling wines, as the oxidation processes are slower during transport and processing for grapes harvested at low temperatures.

8.11.   Sparkling wine – Link between the production area, human factors and the product (2)

As a result of these effects, healthy grapes can be harvested even before the onset of unfavourable autumn weather. The wine produced from those grapes meets the organoleptic requirements of the base wine used to produce the sparkling wine.

These wines are light in colour, and are always fresh, fragrant and slightly aromatic due to the richness of varieties. Thanks to the limestone soil, they are rich in acidity, with a low pH; their acids are fresh and crispy, accompanied by an airy yet steely texture. Sparkling wines produced from Etyek-Buda base wines have a unique complexity of aromas and tastes thanks to the diversity of varieties, and a vigorous acidity, which is accompanied at all times by a fruity taste.

8.12.   Quality sparkling wine – Human factors (2)

Carved into the rock, the Budafok cellar system is particularly well-suited to the lengthy maturation required to produce the quality sparkling wines.

The uniqueness of quality sparkling wine production in Etyek-Buda lies in the varietal composition. The unique and essential feature of Etyek-Buda quality sparkling wines is their wide variation of varieties. The world’s main sparkling wine-producing regions are characterised by the fact that only a few grape varieties have taken root there, especially those that have been able to adapt to the very specific climate conditions. Each of the white grape varieties permitted in the Etyek-Buda wine region is well-suited to the production of white sparkling wine. That said, the leading varieties are Chardonnay, Chasselas, Zöld veltelíni, Olaszrizling and Mézesfehér, which account for 60 % of the total vineyard area. The use of a large number of varieties is explained by the fact that local producers, keen to mitigate vintage effects, have always managed to produce the quality of raw material required for the production of high-quality base wines. Having listed the white grape varieties, the importance of red grape varieties – including Pinot noir, which is the perfect raw material for both white and rosé sparkling wines – should not be overlooked.

8.13.   Quality sparkling wine – Description of the wines

The aromas of Etyek-Buda quality sparkling wines are characterised by a medium intensity, which is complemented by an elegant fruitiness, while their taste is characterised by an acidity that forms the backbone of these wines, as well as their firmness and ageing potential. The acids are fresh and crispy, accompanied by an airy yet steely texture.

8.14.   Quality sparkling wine – Link between the production area, human factors and the product (1)

Over the decades, producers in the Etyek-Buda wine region have come to realise that healthy, intact grapes free from any defects and possessing the properties of internationally renowned varieties are required for a quality sparkling wine to age well. The quality of Etyek-Buda white quality sparkling wines is greatly influenced not only by the properties of the production area, but also by the maturation period.

These international grape varieties include the long-established Chardonnay or Pinot noir, but both Olaszrizling and the internationally renowned Rajnai rizling (Rhine Riesling) varieties are also found in the Etyek-Buda wine region. In addition to the complex environmental factors mentioned above, one of the key attributes of the quality sparkling wines of the Etyek-Buda wine region is that they include varieties that are capable of producing wines with a high degree of acidity, which are excellent for the production of sparkling wines. These varieties retain the character of the grapes even when harvested early, without the aromas and flavours characteristic of green, unripe grapes appearing. This enables sparkling wine of suitable quality and style to be produced for consumers, without any negative vintage effects.

8.15.   Quality sparkling wine – Link between the production area, human factors and the product (2)

The limestone bedrock of the soil of Etyek-Buda mixes with loess and loam, so that despite the high degree of acidity, those acids are not sharp and fit well into the texture of the sparkling wine.

The low temperature and humid air provided by the maturation cellars carved into the Etyek-Buda limestone not only enable the biscuity aromas and creamy flavours characteristic of quality sparkling wines to develop, but also allow the Etyek-Buda quality sparkling wines to retain the characteristics of their variety even after maturation. Thus, although their flavour shows signs of ageing, they also have the characteristic flavour of white-fleshed fruits.

As far as Etyek-Buda rosé quality sparkling wines are concerned, in addition to the climatic, soil and precipitation conditions already mentioned, it is of paramount importance that the grapes used as raw material, which combine a high degree of acidity and mature tannin content, can be harvested very early on.

9.   Essential further conditions (packaging, labelling, other requirements)

Rules on indications

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

(a)	The indication of any variation of adjective ending derived from the expression ‘oltalom alatt álló eredetmegjelölés’ [protected designation of origin] established in the Hungarian language is permitted.

(b)	The expression ‘védett eredetű bor’ [wine of protected origin] may be used instead of the expression ‘oltalom alatt álló eredetmegjelölés’ [protected designation of origin].

(c)	The protected designation of origin ‘Etyek-Buda’, and all variations of adjective ending derived from the names of the smaller geographical units listed in point VIII/2, may be indicated.

(d)	The word ‘rozé’ may be replaced by the word ‘rosé’.

(e)	The word ‘küvé’ or ‘cuvée’ may denote a wine obtained by blending several grape varieties, on the label of which the name of the grape varieties constituting the cuvée may be indicated in descending order of quantity, provided that each variety accounts for at least 5 % of the blend.

(f)	The traditional expression ‘siller’ may be replaced by the expression ‘kástélyos’.

(g)	The use of the expression ‘Etyek-Budai borvidék’ [Etyek-Buda wine region] is permitted on all Etyek-Buda wine products.

Traditional expressions authorised for use, other restricted expressions, expressions indicating the production method, and other regulated expressions

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

WINE:

—	‘barrique’, ‘barrique-ban erjesztett’ [barrique-fermented] or ‘hordóban erjesztett’ [barrel-fermented], ‘barrique-ban érlelt’ [barrique-aged] or ‘hordóban érlelt’ [barrel-aged]: white, red

—	‘Első szüret’ [first harvest] or ‘virgin vintage’: white, rosé, red

—	‘Újbor’ [new wine] or ‘primőr’ [primeur]: white, rosé, red

—	‘Szűretlen’ [unfiltered]: white, rosé, red

—	‘Töppedt szőlőből készült bor’ [wine made from raisined grapes]: white, red

—	‘Muzeális bor’ [historical wine]: white, red

—	‘Késői szüretelésű bor’ [late-harvest wine]: white, red

—	Válogatott szüretelésű bor [selected-harvest wine]: white, red

—	Siller: red

—	‘Jégbor’ [ice wine]: white, red

—	Muskotály [Muscat]: white

—	‘Cuvée’ or ‘küvé’: white, rosé, red

—	Indication of district, municipality and slope name: white, rosé, red, fresh

SPARKLING WINE:

—	Muskotály [Muscat]: white

—	‘Palackban erjesztett’ [bottle-fermented]: white, rosé

—	‘Termelői pezsgő’ [grower’s sparkling wine]: white, rosé

—	‘Küvé’ or ‘cuvée’: white, rosé

QUALITY SPARKLING WINE:

—	‘blanc de blanc’: white

—	‘blanc de noir’: white

—	‘Nyerspezsgő’ [Brut sparkling wine]: white, rosé

—	Muskotály [Muscat]: white

—	crémant: white, rosé

—	‘Palackban erjesztett’ [bottle-fermented]: white, rosé

—	‘Termelői pezsgő’ [grower’s sparkling wine]: white, rosé

—

‘hagyományos módszerrel palackban erjesztett’ [bottle-fermented using the traditional method], ‘hagyományos módszer’ (méthode traditionnelle) [traditional method], ‘klasszikus módszer’ (méthode classique) [classical method], ‘klasszikus hagyományos módszer’ [classical traditional method]: white, rosé

—	‘Küvé’ or ‘cuvée’: white, rosé

Geographical units smaller than the demarcated production area that may be indicated alongside the ‘Etyek-Buda’ designation of origin

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

Districts:

—	The ‘Buda’ district:

—	the municipalities of Budajenő, Budakeszi, Páty, Perbál, Pilisborosjenő, Üröm, Telki and Tök in Pest County, and

—	the municipalities of Bicske and Csabdi in Fejér County.

—	The ‘Etyek’ district:

—	Budapest (District XXII – Budafok, and

—	the municipalities of Alcsútdoboz, Etyek, Felcsút, Gyúró, Kajászó, Martonvásár, Tabajd, Tordas and Vál in Fejér County

—	The ‘Velence’ or ‘Lake Velence’ district:

—	The municipalities of Aba, Gárdony, Kápolnásnyék, Nadap, Pákozd, Pázmánd, Seregélyes, Sukoró and Velence in Fejér County

Municipalities:

—	Budapest (District XXII – Budafok)

—	Municipalities in Pest County: Biatorbágy, Budajenő, Budakeszi, Perbál, Pilisborosjenő, Telki, Tök, Üröm,

—	Municipalities in Fejér County: Aba, Alcsútdoboz, Bicske, Csabdi, Felcsút, Gárdony, Gyúró, Kajászó, Kápolnásnyék, Martonvásár, Nadap, Pákozd, Pázmánd, Seregélyes, Sukoró, Tabajd, Tordas, Vál

Slopes:

—	Alcsútdoboz: Göböljárás, Kis-Látó-hegy, Nagy-Látó hegy

—	Biatorbágy: Nyakas-kő, Öreg-hegy, Ürge-hegy

—	Bicske: Galagonyás, Málé-hegy, Táborállás

—	Budajenő: Körte-völgy, Öreg templom-völgy

—	Budakeszi: Ochsenzungen

—

Etyek: Anna-hegy, Árok-dűlő, Báthori-dűlő, Diófa-árok, Herceg-földek, István-hegy, Káptalan-földek, Kőkaloda-dűlő, Köpeny-dűlő, Orbán, Öreg-hegy, Páskom, Pince-dűlő, Sánc, Sándor-dűlő, Sóskúti úti dűlő, Szári-dűlő, Szép-völgy, Tóra dűlő, Új-hegy, Úri-dűlő, Váli úti dűlő, Vérti-határ-dűlő, Vérti úti dűlő, Vérti-szőlők, Zámori úti dűlő, Zsámbéki úti dűlő

—	Gárdony: Agárdi, Bika-völgy, Csirib aldűlő

—	Kajászó: Paskum, Üreg-telek

—	Kápolnásnyék: Csekés

—	Nadap: Csúcsos-hegy

—	Páty: Hegyi-dűlő, Lövöldöző, Mézes-hegy, Nagy-hegy, Zsámbéki úti dűlő

—	Pázmánd: Bágyom, Gyula tanya, János tanya, Zsidókő-hegy

—	Seregélyes: Elzamajori-szőlő

—	Sukoró: Tádé

—	Tabajd: Badacsony, Becse, Felső-hegy, Mandula, Öreg-hegy

—	Telki: Öreg-hegy

—	Tök: Elletések, Felső-somos, Hosszú-dűlő, Körtvélyes, Páskom, Somos, Szajkós-kertek, Temetői-dűlő, Völgyút-dűlő

—	Vál: Baranya-hegy, Cukor-hegy, Epres-dűlő, Hosszú-dűlő, Öreg-hegy, Szabad-hegy, Új-hegy

Rules on bottling

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Packaging in the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

Etyek-Buda fresh wines, Etyek-Buda wines indicating the slope name, and wines indicating the expression ‘válogatott szüretelésű bor’ [selected-harvest wine], ‘jégbor’ [ice wine], ‘késői szüretelésű bor’ [late-harvest wine], or ‘töppedt szőlőből készült bor’ [wine made from raisined grapes] may be placed on the market in glass bottles only. This rule does not apply to wines produced within the production area by the producer in its own cellar for on-site consumption.

Production outside the demarcated production area

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Derogation concerning production in the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

In addition to the municipalities listed in Chapter IV, for historical reasons the production of Etyek-Buda wine products is also possible in the following adjacent administrative areas:

—	All districts of Budapest

—	Fejér County: Adony, Baracska, Besnyő, Ercsi, Iváncsa, Kulcs, Mány, Óbarok, Pusztaszabolcs, Rácalmás, Ráckeresztúr, Szár, Székesfehérvár, Újbarok, Vereb,

—	Pest County: Budakalász, Budaörs, Diósd, Érd, Sóskút, Tárnok, Tinnye, Zsámbék

—	Tolna County: Zomba-Szentgál

Link to the product specification

https://boraszat.kormany.hu/admin/download/9/1f/b2000/Etyek-Buda%20OEM_termekleiras_standard.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

Notice for the attention of MOHAMMAD ALI AL HABBO, whose name was added to the list referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations, by virtue of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1016

(2021/C 245/22)

---

(1)  OJ L 255, 21.9.2016, p. 25.

(2)  OJ L 222 I, 22.6.2021, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.