15.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/7

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40324 – European Government Bonds

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 418/07)

The draft decision finds an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA involving seven undertakings active in sovereign bonds issued in euro by EU Member States that are part of the euro area (European government bonds, or ‘EGB’). These undertakings concerned (also referred to as the ‘parties’) are:

—	Bank of America;

—

Natixis;

—

Nomura;

—	RBS/NatWest;

—

UBS;

—	UniCredit; and

—	WestLB/Portigon. (2)

The case started following an application for immunity from fines by RBS/NatWest on 29 July 2015. RBS/NatWest obtained conditional immunity on 27 January 2016. On 29 June and 30 September 2016 respectively, UBS and Natixis applied for reduced fines in accordance with the ‘Leniency Notice’. (3)

Statement of Objections

By decision of 31 January 2019, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation 773/2004 (4) and adopted a statement of objections (the ‘SO’). The SO was notified on 4 February 2019 to the legal entities representing the undertakings concerned (5) as well as one additional undertaking (6).

Access to file

Access to the file in the form of an electronic storage medium was granted between 1 and 4 February 2019, and at the premises of the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’) between 7 and 22 February 2019.

On 2 May 2019, Nomura submitted a reasoned request to the Hearing Officer, in accordance with Article 7(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, seeking further access to documents on the file containing data originating from several parties that could form the basis of, or influence, the envisaged calculation of a proxy to the value of sales (7) as a starting point for determining possible fines in this case. Following the Hearing Officer’s intervention, the relevant information providers reduced the scope of their confidentiality claims in relation to the documents over which Nomura requested further access. DG Competition made available the revised non-confidential versions of the documents concerned to all parties, on 26 June 2019. Only two of the parties submitted comments in writing on the revised non-confidential documents that were provided to each of the parties as a result of Nomura’s request for additional access.

Extensions to deadline for reply to SO

DG Competition initially granted the parties a time limit of eight weeks for their written responses to the SO. Following several requests, DG Competition extended the applicable time limits for five of the parties (8). No requests for further extensions were received by the Hearing Officer.

All parties responded to the SO within the (extended) time limits set by DG Competition.

Oral Hearing

All parties participated in an oral hearing that took place from 22 to 24 October 2019.

Fining Methodology Letter and Letter of Facts

On 6 (9) and 26 November 2020 (10), Executive Vice-President Vestager, Commissioner for Competition, sent letters to the parties on which fines could be imposed (11), providing further individual details on the fines methodology with particular attention to the individualised calculation and outcome of the envisaged proxy to the value of sales for each of them (the ‘Fining Methodology Letter’). DG Competition also provided additional information on the fining methodology to these parties by email, on 9 and 10 December 2020 (12).

10.

On 12 November 2020, the parties also received a letter of facts (the ‘Letter of Facts’) enabling them to provide their views on factual additions and corrections concerning certain communications that had been presented in the SO (including its Annex). On the same date, the parties received (renewed) access to accessible versions of the underlying evidence contained in the Commission’s investigation file by e-mail (13).

11.

DG Competition initially granted the parties time limits of 20 working days to provide comments to each of the above two letters.

12.

Following requests, DG Competition extended applicable time limits for comments on the Fining Methodology Letter and on the Letter of Facts (14). No requests for further extensions were received by the Hearing Officer.

13.

Four of the parties submitted their comments on the Fining Methodology Letter and five of the parties submitted their comments on the Letter of Facts, within the (extended) time limits set by DG Competition in December 2020 and January 2021 (15). Four of the parties argued, among other things, that their rights of defence were undermined as the information communicated via the Letter of Facts – and according to two of them also the information communicated via the Fining Methodology Letter – should have been included in a supplementary statement of objections, affording them the opportunity to request an oral hearing.

14.

As regards the information communicated via the Letter of Facts, which some of the parties considered to have constituted changes to the (legal assessment in the) SO, the draft decision argues that the Letter of Facts has not added new objections (16) or otherwise changed the intrinsic nature of the infringement as described in the SO. In particular, the Letter of Facts has not substantially modified the categories or types of communications described in the SO or their legal qualification as together forming part of an overall plan pursuing a common anti-competitive aim and thereby constituting one single and continuous infringement. Rather, the corrections communicated to the parties through the Letter of Facts can be considered equivalent to the dropping of certain evidence, in combination with enabling the parties to be heard on the addition of such facts and/or new facts that were not yet mentioned in the SO (17) as evidence in support of specific (other) categories or types of communications described in the SO. If anything, it would appear less cumbersome for the parties to exercise their right to be heard on evidence presented in the Letter of Facts that was already brought to their attention at the time of the SO, and with which they had thus already been able to familiarise themselves (18), than on documents or evidence that had not yet been mentioned in the SO.

15.

As regards the information communicated via the Fining Methodology Letter, as argued in the draft decision, the Campine judgment of the General Court (19) supports the view that, at the stage of the SO, the Commission was not required to take a final decision on the final method for determining the amount of the fines that it intended to apply and that further clarifications on the fining methodology could be provided by letter rather than in the form of a supplementary statement of objections.

16.

In light of the explanations in the draft decision and the considerations above on the parties’ responses to both the Fining Methodology Letter and the Letter of Facts, as well as the fact that there is no fundamental right to be heard orally as long as views can effectively be made known in writing (20), and given that Article 12 of Regulation 773/2004 only provides for the right to an oral hearing following a statement of objections, it follows that a second oral hearing was not legally required.

Other procedural issues raised by Bank of America

17.

On 15 April 2021, Bank of America addressed a complaint to the Hearing Officer. It submitted that DG Competition had informed Bank of America at an informal meeting on 16 March 2021 that the Commission would no longer rely on a certain element of the alleged infringing conduct on the part of Bank of America. Bank of America argued that if the Commission intended to proceed with the case against it on this basis, such case would be ‘profoundly different to that set out in the SO’ and that it required an opportunity for Bank of America to make written and oral representations on those ‘revised allegations’. Bank of America requested that the Hearing Officer issue certain directions to DG Competition in this respect.

18.

On 16 April 2021, the Hearing Officer responded to Bank of America, explaining that its request that the Hearing Officer direct DG Competition to take certain actions did not fall within any of the provisions of Decision 2011/695/EU that grant the Hearing Officer decisional powers and that the Hearing Officer was thus not empowered to adopt the decisions Bank of America requested. Subsequently, Bank of America reiterated essentially the same arguments in further contacts with DG Competition (21). In substance, the Hearing Officer considers that the position of Bank of America that the change in assessment communicated by DG Competition breached its right to be heard is unfounded. The fact that the draft decision entails a reduction of the scope of Bank of America’s individual liability for the single and continuous infringement as preliminarily set out in the SO, and further to Bank of America’s arguments in its reply to the SO, does not amount to a breach of the right to be heard.

The Draft Decision

19.

Compared to the SO, (i) one of the addressees of the SO has not been retained as an addressee of the draft decision due to lack of sufficient evidence; and (ii) the overall duration of the single and continuous infringement has been shortened by two months and four days in the draft decision (whereas, at the same time, the infringement periods for individual undertakings involved have been shortened accordingly, by up to five months and 16 days).

20.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, the Hearing Officer has examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and has come to a positive conclusion.

21.

In view of the above, the Hearing Officer considers that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the parties to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 20 May 2021.

Dorothe DALHEIMER

(1) Pursuant to Article 16 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) Grouped by undertaking, the relevant legal entities are: Bank of America, National Association and Bank of America Corporation (together, interchangeably with the corresponding undertaking, ‘Bank of America’); Natixis S.A. (‘Natixis’); Nomura International plc and Nomura Holdings, Inc. (together, interchangeably with the corresponding undertaking, ‘Nomura’); The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, NatWest Markets Plc and NatWest Markets N.V. (together, interchangeably with the corresponding undertaking, ‘RBS/NatWest’); UBS Group AG and UBS AG (together, interchangeably with the corresponding undertaking, ‘UBS’); UniCredit S.p.A. and UniCredit Bank AG (together, interchangeably with the corresponding undertaking, ‘UniCredit’); as well as Portigon AG (previously WestLB AG, ‘WestLB/Portigon’).

(3) Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17).

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

(5) See footnote 2 above.

(6) The SO clarified that no fine can be imposed on Bank of America and Natixis, since their conduct as described in the SO falls outside the limitation period of Article 25(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1). Recital 11 of Regulation No 1/2003 foresees that the Commission should be able to adopt decisions pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 finding that an infringement has been committed in the past even if it does not impose a fine.

(7) In the SO, it was indicated that although the Commission ‘intends to apply the methodology set out in the Guidelines on fines’, since EGB do not generate any sales in the usual sense, the Commission would apply a specific proxy for the value of sales based on annualised notional amounts of EGB traded, discounted by a certain adjustment factor, as a starting point for the determination of fines.

(8) The extended deadlines for responses to the SO ranged between 23 April and 15 May 2019.

(9) As regards Nomura, RBS/NatWest, UBS, UniCredit and one other undertaking.

(10) As regards WestLB/Portigon.

(11) See footnote 6 above.

(12) This further communication was triggered by Nomura’s request to DG Competition on 2 December 2020 for further details on the fining methodology.

(13) All documents except one had been made accessible before in the context of the access to the file that was granted after the adoption of the SO.

(14) On 24 November 2020, two of the parties had made separate submissions to DG Competition as well, addressing their procedural rights in relation to both the Fining Methodology Letter and the Letter of Facts.

(15) These comments were also transmitted to the cabinet of the Commissioner responsible for competition, to DG Competition’s hierarchy, to the other Commission services following the case, including the Hearing Officer, and to the competent authorities of the Member States ahead of the meeting of the Advisory Committee.

(16) Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012, MasterCard and Others v Commission, T-111/08, EU:T:2012:260, paragraphs 266. See also Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015, Panasonic v Commission, T-82/13, EU:T:2015:612, paragraph 50.

(17) Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020, HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement KG v Commission, T-380/17, EU:T:2020:471, paragraph 636.

(18) The draft decision also mentions that most of the corrections communicated to the parties via the Letter of Facts had already been identified by the parties themselves.

(19) Judgment of 7 November 2019, Campine and Campine Recycling v Commission, T-240/17, EU:T:219:778, paragraphs 355-360.

(20) See Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 23 November 2006 in Jussila v Finland (Application no. 73053/01), paragraphs 40 to 49; of 19 April 2007 in Vilho Eskelinen & Ors v Finland (Application no. 63235/00), paragraphs 72 to 75; and of 23 October 2018 in Produkcija Plus storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v Slovenia (Application no. 47072/15), paragraph 54; and Decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 13 March 2012 in Bouygues Telecom v France (Application no. 2324/08), paragraphs 69 to 71; as well as Orders in Troszczynski v Parliament, C-462/18 P, EU:C:2019:239, paragraphs 52 to 55, in Gollnisch v Parliament, C-330/18 P, EU:C:2019:240, paragraphs 60 and 61, and Judgment in Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council, T-174/12 and T-80/13, EU:T:2014:52, paragraph 147; and Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in SKW Stahl-Metallurgie v Commission, C-154/14 P, EU:C:2015:543, paragraphs 49 and 58; Judgment in Lucchini v Commission, T-185/18, EU:T:2019:298, paragraph 49; and Judgment in HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement v Commission, T-380/17, EU:T:2020:471, paragraph 634.

(21) On 5 May 2021, another informal call between Bank of America and DG Competition took place, followed by a letter by Bank of America to DG Competition on 7 May 2021, of which the Hearing Officer received a copy, in which Bank of America raised the issue again.

15.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/11

Summary of Commission Decision

of 20 May 2021

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.40324 — European Government Bonds)

(notified under document C(2021)3489)

(Only the English and German texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 418/08)

On 20 May 2021, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the ‘Treaty’) and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the ‘EEA Agreement’). In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Competition Directorate-General website at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

1. INTRODUCTION

(1)

The addressees of the Decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The object of the infringement (a cartel) was the restriction and/or distortion of competition in the sector of European Government Bonds (‘EGB’).

2. PROCEDURE

(2)

The Commission opened its investigation on 29 July 2015 on the basis of an immunity application of RBS (now NatWest) under the leniency programme. (2) The Commission sent requests for information pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation 1/2003 to various banks following which two of them, UBS and Natixis, applied for reduction of fines under the leniency programme. Next to the voluntary cooperation of leniency applicants, the investigation relied on further requests for information sent to the banks involved in the investigation.

(3)

The Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003 on 31 January 2019 and issued a Statement of Objections, to which the addressees replied in writing and orally during an Oral Hearing. Thereafter, the Commission sent another request for information, a letter of facts and a letter clarifying the calculation of the proxy for the value of sales in this case. All parties concerned submitted their observations.

(4)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted and gave a positive opinion. The Hearing Officer also issued a final report. The Commission adopted the decision on 20 May 2021.

3. ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT

(5)

The infringement relates to cartel conduct in the primary and the secondary market for EGB trading for a period of almost five years.

(6)

EGB are sovereign bonds issued in Euro by the central governments of the Eurozone Member States. EGB are a type of debt security which allows European governments to raise cash to fund expenditures or investments or to refinance existing debt. EGB allow the government issuing the bond (the issuer) to borrow money (the principal amount) from investors for a fixed term (the maturity date). In return, the government pays a fixed or floating rate of interest (the coupon) to the investor that holds the bond and repays the principal amount to the investor that holds the bond at the maturity date.

(7)

EGB are issued on the primary market and subsequently traded on the secondary market. Governments delegate the issuing of bonds to their Treasury Department, and more specifically to their Debt Management Office. They can offer and place EGB in the market through auctions, which is a tendering process, or through syndication, which is a private placement process. Primary dealers acquire the bonds on the primary market and place them with their customers on the secondary market. On the secondary market, the bonds are traded between dealers and with other institutional investors. Typically, large investment banks trade all EGB within their EGB desk, irrespective of the date of issuance, principal amount or maturity date of the EGB.

(8)

During the period between January 2007 and November 2011, a group of EGB traders were in close contact with each other in person, via telephone, instant messages and persistent chatrooms. Persistent chatrooms are multilateral meetings, in which the participants are not physically present and do not communicate orally, but communicate with each other by sending instant messages to the group that are accessible to all and to which all can react. A persistent chatroom is a continuous conference that is by ‘invitation only’, meaning that participation is limited to invited members who have automatic access to the full conversation(s).

(9)

Two persistent chatrooms that were of particular relevance for exchanging information in this cartel were initiated early in 2007 by a group of four traders. This group had access to both chatrooms from the start and continued to have access throughout, even when changing employer and access had to be technically renewed. These traders were involved in the mutual contacts throughout their existence. They also invited other traders, from their or other banks, to one or both chatrooms. These traders thus also participated in the infringement, albeit to a more limited extent and for more limited periods in time. The conduct of all those traders engaged liability of their employing banks, on whose behalf they traded.

(10)

Contacts in the persistent chatrooms occurred regularly, sometimes daily, in particular when EGB came up for auction. Communications could be lengthy, lasting all day or spanning multiple days. The traders used professional jargon, abreviations, nicknames and code words.

(11)

The Commission has organised these contacts for the purpose of this Decision in four intertwined and partially overlapping categories of agreements and concerted practices regarding:

(a)	attempts to influence the prevailing market price on the secondary market in function of the conduct on the primary market;

(b)	attempts to coordinate the bidding on the primary market;

(c)	attempts to coordinate the level of overbidding on the primary market;

(d)

other exchanges of sensitive information, including on (i) pricing elements, positions and/or volumes and strategies for specific counterparties related to individual trades of EGB on the secondary markets; (ii) individual recommendations given to a DMO and (iii) the timing of pricing of syndicates.

(12)

In these contacts, the traders exchanged commercially sensitive information that kept them informed about each other’s conduct and strategies for acquiring EGB on the primary market and trading them on the secondary market. These exchanges allowed them to align and/or coordinate their conduct and help each other gain competitive advantages when EGB were issued, placed in the market and traded. Relevant information exchanged included information on prices, volumes and trading positions: mid-prices, yield curves and spreads of bonds recently traded or being offered on the secondary market, volumes envisaged to purchase at the auctions, information on the bids, the level of overbidding and overbidding strategies at the auctions and so forth. The information exchanged between competitors was often precise and commercially sensitive. It was relevant to the traders’ decision making and allowed them to adjust their trading strategies as a result.

(13)

The overall aim of the collaboration between the group traders was to help each other in their operation on the market through increased transparency and reduced uncertainties regarding the issuing and/or trading of EGB, knowingly substituting the risks of competition to the detriment of other market participants, banks, their customers or DMOs.

(14)

These anticompetitive contacts were linked and complementary in nature. Considering a variety of objective elements such as the content and frequency of the contacts, the product concerned, the methods used, the pattern, time period and actors involved, they formed a single and continuous infringement consisting of agreements and/or concerted practices that had as their object the restriction of competition in the EGB sector.

(15)

The geographic scope of the infringement covered at least the whole EEA.

4. INDIVIDUAL INVOLVEMENT

(16)

The following undertakings have participated in the conduct and therefore infringed Article 101 (1) TFEU and Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement during the periods indicated below.

—	Bank of America from 29 January 2007 until 6 November 2008,

—	Natixis from 26 February 2008 until 6 August 2009,

—	NatWest from 4 January 2007 until 28 November 2011 (3),

—	Nomura from 18 January 2011 until 28 November 2011,

—	Portigon from 19 October 2009 until 3 June 2011,

—	UBS from 4 January 2007 until 28 November 2011, and

—	UniCredit from 9 September 2011 until 28 November 2011.

5. REMEDIES

(17)

The individual participation of Bank of America and Natixis in the conduct ended more than five years before the start of the Commission investigation. Under Article 25 of Regulation No 1/2003 the Commission can no longer apply Article 23 (2) (a) of that Regulation and cannot impose a fine on Bank of America and Natixis. The Decision therefore only imposes fines on the undertakings NatWest, Nomura, Portigon, UBS and UniCredit.

(18)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. (4) The basic amount of the fine is set by reference to a proxy for the value of sales. The Commission calculated the annual value of sales on the basis of the notional amount of EGB traded by the parties on the secondary market in the EEA during their period of individual involvement, discounted by a factor that takes account of the particularities of the EGB industry, and more in particular that these products are constantly traded. For this purpose, the Commission adjusted or discounted the annualised notional amounts of EGB traded by a factor that takes into account the bid-ask spread levels inherent to this market. The Commission applied a different discount factor for each party because of the high volatility of EGB bid-ask spread levels and discrepancy across issuing countries, maturities and throughout the infringement period.

(19)

The amount of the fines takes into account the very serious nature of cartel infringements, the duration and geographic scope of the cartel, the fact that the conduct permeated the whole EGB industry on the primary and secondary market and that EGB are used for raising public funding and the conduct took place at the time of a very serious financial crisis. In line with Commission practice, an additional amount is added to deter undertakings from ever entering into such illegal practices (so called ‘entry-fee’).

(20)

There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances for the undertakings subject to fines, but the fact that the trader of UniCredit was only active on the secondary market is recognised in the calculation of the gravity factor for UniCredit.

(21)

The fine imposed on each undertaking does not exceed 10 % of its total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of the Commission decision, except for West LB/Portigon. Its latest net turnover (2020) is negative and the fine is therefore capped to zero.

(22)

The Commission grants full immunity from fines to NatWest and a reduction of 45 % of the fine to UBS for their cooperation in the investigation.

6. CONCLUSION

(23)

The Decision addresses the following undertakings for having infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and imposes a fine pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the following legal entities that are jointly and severally liable to pay the fine.

Undertaking and legal entities

Fines (EUR)

Bank of America:

Bank of America Corporation

Bank of America, National Association

Not applicable (time-barred)

Natixis:

Natixis S.A.

Not applicable (time-barred)

NatWest:

NatWest Group plc

NatWest Markets plc

NatWest Markets N.V

0 (immunity applicant)

Nomura:

Nomura Holdings Inc

Nomura International plc

129 573 000

Portigon:

Portigon AG

0 (negative net turnover in 2020)

UBS:

UBS Group AG

UBS AG

172 378 000

UniCredit:

UniCredit S.p.A.

Unicredit Bank AG

69 442 000

(1) 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).

(2) Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17).

(3) NatWest Group plc and NatWest Markets plc from 4 January 2007 until 28 November 2011 and NatWest Markets N.V. from 17 October 2007 until 28 November 2011.

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

15.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/19

Summary of Commission Decision

of 28 April 2021

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds)

(notified under document C(2021) 2871)

(Only the English language text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 418/11)

On 28 April 2021, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the ‘Treaty’) and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the ‘EEA Agreement’). In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Competition Directorate General website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

1. INTRODUCTION

(1)

The addressees of the Decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The object of the infringement was the restriction and/or distortion of competition in the sector of Supra-sovereign, Sovereign and Agency bonds issued in US dollars (‘USD SSA Bonds’).

(2)

SSA bonds form an umbrella category of different bonds that are traded over the counter, without any central exchange and include:

—	Supra-sovereign bonds: issued by supranational institutions whose mandate extends across national borders, such as the European Investment Bank (‘EIB’) or the Inter-American Development Bank (‘IADB’);

—	Foreign Sovereign bonds: issued by central governments under a law different to their domestic law, and/or in currencies other than the government’s own domestic currency;

—

Agency (sub-sovereign) bonds: issued by government or government-related entities below the level of the national central government, such as provincial, regional or municipal governments (for example, the Länder of Germany or the provinces of Canada), or by institutions like government-owned banks, infrastructure development bodies, export financiers or social security facilities, generally subject to an implicit or explicit guarantee by the sovereign.

The conduct referred to in this Decision involves all three types of bond.

(3)

SSA bonds typically tend to be issued on the primary market by means of syndication. The conduct described in this Decision does not relate to the primary market, however, but rather the subsequent trading on the secondary market of USD SSA Bonds.

(4)

The Decision is addressed to (hereinafter ‘the addressees’):

—	Bank of America Corporation and Merrill Lynch International (together referred to as ‘BAML’);

—	Crédit Agricole SA, Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (together referred to as ‘Crédit Agricole’);

—	Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (together referred to as ‘Credit Suisse’); and

—	Deutsche Bank AG, DB Group Services (UK) Limited and Deutsche Securities Inc. (together referred to as ‘Deutsche Bank’).

2. CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Procedure

(5)

The case was opened on the basis of an immunity application from Deutsche Bank on 4 August 2015. No other party applied for leniency. The European Commission (’Commission’) sent requests for information pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 on 4 December 2015 and 6 September 2016 to BAML, Crédit Agricole, Credit Suisse and other undertakings and on 21-24 November 2016 carried out announced inspections at the premises of BAML and Crédit Agricole

(6)

By decision of 20 December 2018, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, against BAML, Crédit Agricole, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank and on 21 December 2018 the Commission issued a Statement of Objections addressed to the four banks. The parties were subsequently given access to the Commission’s case file.

(7)

All addressees of the Statement of Objections made known in writing to the Commission their views on the objections raised against them. They also presented their views during an oral hearing that was held in Brussels on 10 and 11 July 2019.

(8)

On 6 November 2020, the Commission sent a letter to all parties providing further details on the fines methodology with particular attention to the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales. One of the parties responded to the letter on 4 December 2020 and the remaining three parties submitted their observations on 8 January 2021.

(9)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted and gave a positive opinion on 26 April 2021. The Hearing Officer issued his final report on 27 April 2021, and the Commission adopted the Decision on 28 April 2021.

2.2. Description of the conduct

(10)

The conduct related to trades of USD SSA Bonds on the secondary market. It directly affected the outcome of negotiations between the traders concerned and specific counterparties, as well as the conditions of trading on the USD SSA Bond market generally to the extent that the traders’ strategies were not targeted to specific customers but to the market as a whole.

(11)

BAML, Crédit Agricole, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, through the conduct of certain of their employees, exchanged sensitive commercial information that allowed them to coordinate their conduct, thereby gaining an advantage vis-à-vis customers and competing traders when trading USD SSA bonds on the secondary market with the overall aim to benefit their trading revenues.

(12)

For analytical purposes, the cartel conduct can be presented in the following categories:

(1)	Coordination on prices quoted to specific counterparties: parties agreed on the prices they would bid and/or offer to specific clients when they were (or potentially would be) in direct competition with each other for trades;

(2)	Coordination on prices shown to the market generally: parties agreed on the prices they would show for specific bonds to the market (which included customers, brokers and competing traders) generally at a given time, either on the broker screens or in response to incoming customer requests;

(3)

Exchange of current or forward-looking commercially sensitive information on their trading activities and trade flows in the secondary market: parties freely discussed information gained from internal sources of each bank in relation to the real-time strategies and activities of specific clients, upcoming flows and syndications in a manner that went beyond what was necessary for the legitimate negotiation of specific USD SSA Bond trades;

(4)

Exchange, confirmation and alignment of trading and pricing strategies: parties disclosed their recent prices or current pricing strategies for specific bonds and maturities in terms of spreads or prices throughout the trading day, allowing each other to adjust and align their strategies and protect each other; and

(5)

Coordination of trading activity: parties agreed to refrain from bidding or offering, or to remove (or ‘kill’) a bid or offer from the market (typically from a broker screen) when they might come into competition with or otherwise interfere with one another, for a particular time window on account of another trader’s announced position or trading activity. They also agreed to split trades between each other and amalgamate or reduce their respective positions to meet a specific customer’s demands (as disclosed between them).

(13)

The different categories of conduct described for analytical purposes were interrelated and often overlapping. Coordination on prices or trading activity, for example, would inevitably be accompanied by an exchange of specific information on respective pricing or trading intentions. At least one trader from each party participated in some or all of these categories during the overall duration of the cartel, which ran from at least 19 January 2010 until 24 March 2015.

(14)

The collusive activity occurred through multilateral persistent chatrooms supplemented (and then replaced, following restrictions on the use of multilateral chatrooms by the parties) by frequent bilateral contacts.

2.3. Individual involvement in the conduct

(15)

During the overall duration of the infringement, each party participated in the infringement during the following periods:

BAML first participated from 19 January 2010 until 23 October 2012 and then again from 22 July 2014 until 27 January 2015;

Crédit Agricole participated from 10 January 2013 until 24 March 2015;

Credit Suisse participated from 21 June 2010 until 24 March 2015;

Deutsche Bank participated from 19 January 2010 until 28 March 2014.

(16)

The Decision establishes that BAML, Crédit Agricole, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The factual circumstances on the file such as the product concerned, the mechanism for the conduct, the undertakings involved, the pattern of contacts, the intention to contribute to an overall plan with the aim of benefitting their revenues, the awareness of the traders of the communications between them and the continuous nature of the infringement show that the collusive contacts between the parties were linked and complementary in nature and contributed to a single objective.

2.4. Geographic scope

(17)

The geographic scope of the infringement covered at least the whole EEA.

2.5. Remedies

(18)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. (2) The Decision imposes fines on the entities of BAML, Crédit Agricole and Credit Suisse listed in point (4) above.

2.5.1. Basic amount of the fine

(19)

The basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the undertakings concerned is to be set by reference to the value of sales, the duration and geographic scope of the cartel and the fact that the infringement, in involving price coordination, is by its very nature amongst the most harmful restrictions of competition.

(20)

Financial products such as USD SSA Bonds do not generate sales in the usual sense as they are both bought and sold by the dealers and revenues are derived from the difference between the purchase price and the sale price of each bond acquired and then sold by the traders. It is therefore appropriate in this case to calculate a proxy for the value of sales as the starting point for determining the basic amount of the fines.

(21)

It is consistent Commission practice in cartel cases in the financial sector not to determine the proxy for the value of sales by reference to the ‘net trading income’ or ‘net profit from financial operations’. These methods reflect trading profits netted against trading losses (which can vary significantly between undertakings and are not necessarily proportionate to trading volumes and values) and are comparable to a measurement of profit from trading actitivities rather than constituting an appropriate proxy for the value of sales under the Guidelines on Fines. Instead, it is appropriate to use the notional volume and value of the USD SSA bonds that the parties traded during their individual period of involvement in the cartel as the starting point for the specific proxy for the value of sales in this case.

(22)

The Commission will normally take the sales made by the undertaking during the last full business year of its participation. However in view of the varying size of the USD SSA Bond market, the high volatility over the infringement period, and the differing time periods in which the different addressees were involved, the Commission considers it more appropriate to base the annualised sales proxy on the value of sales actually made by the undertakings during the months corresponding to their respective participation in the infringement.

(23)

These annualised notional amounts traded reflect the economic importance of the infringement and the relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement, irrespective of the period of individual participation, but may lead to disproportionate fines if the particularities of the financial industry and the USD SSA bond industry in particular are not taken into account. As the revenue on transactions of USD SSA Bonds in the secondary market is reflected in the difference between the purchase price and the sale price of each bond, known as the ‘bid-ask spread’, the Commission therefore discounts the above mentioned annualised notional amounts of USD SSA bonds traded on the secondary market by a factor based on the the applicable bid-ask spreads,

(24)

The Commission considers that it is appropriate to set the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into account for calculating the basic amount of the fine at 16% and the percentage to be applied for the purposes of calculating the additional amount is 16% of the proxy for the value of sales.

2.5.2. Adjustment to the basic amount: aggravating or mitigating circumstances

(25)

There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

2.5.3. Specific amount for deterrence

(26)

In determining the amount of the fines, the Commission pays particular attention to the need to ensure that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect and has discretion to apply a deterrence multiplier provided that it does not discriminate among parties to the case. In particular, the Commission may increase the fines to be imposed on undertakings which have a particularly large turnover beyond the sales of goods or services to which the infringement relates. On this basis, and taking into account their turnovers in the last business year preceding the Decision, the Commission considers it appropriate to apply a multiplier of 1.3 to the fines to be imposed on BAML, and a multiplier of 1.2 to the fines to be imposed on Crédit Agricole.

2.5.4. Application of the 10% turnover limit

(27)

Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 provides that the fine imposed on each undertaking for each infringement shall not exceed 10% of its total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of the Commission decision.

(28)

In this case, none of the fines exceed 10% of an undertaking’s total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of this Decision.

2.5.5. Application of the Leniency Notice

(29)

The Commission considers that Deutsche Bank is entitled to immunity from any fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it for its involvement in the infringement that is the subject of this Decision.

3. CONCLUSION

(30)

The fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 are as follows:

(a)	Deutsche Bank AG, DB Group Services (UK) Limited and Deutsche Securities Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0;

(b)	Bank of America Corporation and Merrill Lynch International, jointly and severally liable: EUR 12 642 000;

(c)	Crédit Agricole SA and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 993 000;

(d)	Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, jointly and severally liable: EUR 11 859 000.

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

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

15.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/24

Commission notice concerning the application of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin or the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the Contracting Parties to this Convention

(2021/C 418/12)

For the purpose of the application of diagonal cumulation of origin among the Contracting Parties (1) to the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin (2) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Convention’), the Parties concerned notify each other, through the European Commission, of the origin rules in force with the other Parties.

It is recalled that diagonal cumulation can only be applied if the Parties of final manufacture and of final destination have concluded free trade agreements, containing identical rules of origin, with all the Parties participating in the acquisition of originating status, i.e. with all the Parties from which the materials used originate. Materials originating in a Party which has not concluded an agreement with the Parties of final manufacture and/or of final destination shall be treated as non-originating. Specific examples are given in the Explanatory Notes concerning the pan-Euro-Mediterranean protocols on rules of origin (3).

Based on the notifications made by the Parties to the European Commission, the tables attached specify:

Table 1 – a simplified overview of cumulation possibilities on 1 August 2021.

Tables 2 and 3 – the date from which diagonal cumulation becomes applicable.

In Table 1, an ‘X’ marks the existence between 2 partners of a free trade agreement containing rules of origin allowing cumulation based on pan-Euro-Mediterranean model rules of origin. To use diagonal cumulation with a third partner, an ‘X’ should be present in all the intersection of the table between the 3 partners. However, there are some exceptions to diagonal cumulation. For such cases, either (1), (2) or an (*) next to the ‘X’ will point out the exceptions to consider.

In Table 2, the dates mentioned refer to:

—	The date of application of diagonal cumulation on the basis of Article 3 of Appendix I to the Convention where the free trade agreement concerned refers to the Convention. In that case the date is preceded by ‘(C)’;

—	The date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation attached to the free trade agreement concerned, in other cases.

In Table 3 the dates mentioned refer to the date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation attached to the free trade agreements between the EU, Turkey and the participants to the EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process. Each time a reference to the Convention is made in a free trade agreement between Parties in this table, a date preceded by ‘(C)’ has been added in Table 2.

It is also recalled that materials originating in Turkey covered by the EU-Turkey customs union can be incorporated as originating materials for the purpose of diagonal cumulation between the European Union and the countries participating in the Stabilisation and Association Process with which an origin protocol is in force.

The codes for the Contracting Parties listed in the tables are given here below.

—	European Union

—	EFTA States:

—

Iceland

—	Switzerland (including Liechtenstein) (4)

CH (+ LI)

—

Norway

—	The Faroe Islands

—	The participants in the Barcelona Process:

—

Algeria

—

Egypt

—

Israel

—

Jordan

—

Lebanon

—

Morocco

—	West Bank and Gaza Strip

—

Syria

—

Tunisia

—

Turkey

—	The participants in the EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process:

—

Albania

—	Bosnia and Herzegovina

—	North Macedonia

—	Montenegro

—

Serbia

—	Kosovo (*)

—	The Republic of Moldova

—

Georgia

—

Ukraine

This notice replaces notice 2020/C 322/03 (OJ C 322, 30.9.2020, p. 3).

Table 1

Simplified overview of diagonal cumulation possibilities in the pan-Euro-Med zone on 1 August 2021

EFTA states

Participants in the Barcelona Process

Participants in the EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process

CH (+LI)

X (5)

CH (+LI)

X (5)

X (*1)

(*1)

X (*1)

X (6)

X (*1)

(*1)

X (*1)

X (6)

Table 2

Date of application of rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation in the pan-Euro-Med zone

EFTA states

Participants in the Barcelona Process

Participants in the EU’s Stabilisation and Association Process

CH(+LI)

1.1.2006

1.12.2005

1.11.2007

1.3.2006

1.1.2006

1.7.2006

1.12.2005

1.7.2009

1.8.2006

(7)

(+LI)

1.1.2006

1.8.2005

1.1.2006

1.8.2007

1.7.2005

17.7.2007

1.1.2007

1.3.2005

1.5.2016

1.6.2005

1.9.2007

1.2.2016

1.6.2012

1.1.2006

1.8.2005

1.11.2005

1.8.2007

1.7.2005

17.7.2007

1.1.2007

1.3.2005

1.5.2016

1.3.2006

1.9.2007

1.5.2015

1.6.2012

1.1.2006

1.8.2005

1.12.2005

1.8.2007

1.7.2005

17.7.2007

1.1.2007

1.3.2005

1.5.2016

1.8.2005

1.9.2007

1.5.2015

1.6.2012

1.12.2005

1.1.2006

1.11.2005

1.12.2005

1.11.2007

1.3.2006

1.8.2007

6.7.2006

1.3.2007

1.1.2006

1.7.2005

9.2.2006

1.3.2006

1.7.2006

17.7.2007

6.7.2006

9.2.2006

6.7.2006

1.1.2007

1.12.2005

1.3.2005

6.7.2006

1.1.2006

1.7.2009

1.5.2016

1.1.2007

1.8.2006

1.6.2005

1.3.2006

1.8.2005

6.7.2006

1.7.2005

(7)

1.9.2007

1.3.2007

1.3.2006

1.1.2006

1.1.2007

1.7.2005

1.9.2019

1.2.2016

1.5.2015

1.6.2012

Table 3

Date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey

	EU	AL	BA	KO	MK	ME	RS	TR
EU		1.1.2007	1.7.2008	1.4.2016	1.1.2007	1.1.2008	8.12.2009	(8)
AL	1.1.2007		22.11.2007	1.4.2014	26.7.2007	26.7.2007	24.10.2007	1.8.2011
BA	1.7.2008	22.11.2007		1.4.2014	22.11.2007	22.11.2007	22.11.2007	14.12.2011
KO	1.4.2016	1.4.2014	1.4.2014		1.4.2014	1.4.2014	1.4.2014	1.9.2019
MK	1.1.2007	26.7.2007	22.11.2007	1.4.2014		26.7.2007	24.10.2007	1.7.2009
ME	1.1.2008	26.7.2007	22.11.2007	1.4.2014	26.7.2007		24.10.2007	1.3.2010
RS	8.12.2009	24.10.2007	22.11.2007	1.4.2014	24.10.2007	24.10.2007		1.9.2010
TR	(8)	1.8.2011	14.12.2011	1.9.2019	1.7.2009	1.3.2010	1.9.2010

(1) The Contracting Parties are the European Union, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Kosovo (under Resolution 1244(1999) of the United Nations Security Council), Lebanon, North Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland (including Liechtenstein), Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and West Bank and Gaza Strip.

(2) OJ L 54, 26.2.2013, p. 4.

(3) OJ C 83, 17.4.2007, p. 1.

(4) Switzerland and the Principality of Liechtenstein form a customs union.

(*) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

(*1) Diagonal cumulation between Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia is possible. However, plese see Table 3 for the possibility of diagonal cumulation between the European Union, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.

(5) For goods covered by the EU-Turkey customs union, the date of application is 27 July 2006.

For agricultural products, the date of application is 1 January 2007(cumulation is not applicable with MD and GE).

For coal and steel products, the date of application is 1 March 2009(cumulation is not applicable with MD and GE)

(6) For the products:

—	under Chapters 1 to 24 of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System; and

—	covered by the Annex 1 to the FTA between the Republic of Turkey and Georgia cumulation of origin can be applied only when originating in the Republic of Turkey and Georgia

(7) For goods covered by the EU-Turkey customs union, the date of application is 27 July 2006.

For agricultural products, the date of application is 1 January 2007.

For coal and steel products, the date of application is 1 March 2009.

(8) For goods covered by the EU-Turkey customs union, the date of application is 27 July 2006. Not applicable for agricultural products and for coal and steel products.

15.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/35

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the 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 418/14)

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

COMMUNICATION OF STANDARD AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Huşi’

PDO-RO-A1583-AM02

Date of communication: 13 July 2021

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1. Indication of specific labelling conditions

The specification has been supplemented with other vineyard names such as Colina Mănăstirii, La Schit and Dealul lui Moțoc, which may be used in the labelling of PDO wines if they have originated/been obtained from those locations.

Chapter III of the specification and point 9 of the single document are amended.

2. Introduction of new winemaking grape varieties into production

New wine grape varieties have been added to the specification for white/rosé/red wines, i.e. Grasă de Cotnari, Riesling de Rhin, Muscadelle and Semillon for white wines and Syrah, Zweigelt, Sangiovese, Nebbiolo and Barbera for red wines. These varieties are preferred for rosé wines not only because they are aromatic varieties that may have aromatic accumulation (fruit in particular) and sugars, but also because rosé wines can have accumulation of coloured tannins along with concentration of aromas.

Chapter IV of the specification and point 7 of the single document are amended.

3. Amendment of the wine yield

Changes due to oenological factors, resulting from new wine-making equipment and use of new technical solutions in the field of wine-making materials, with this helping to increase the quantity and quality of ‘Huși’ wines.

Following extensive reconversion and restructuring projects for vineyards in the area, there have been significant changes in their density and purity, with increases compared to the average density of previous vineyards. The adaptation of the clonal selection and the use of an appropriate rootstock structure has contributed to a significant increase in the area’s wine and grape yields.

Converted/restructured vineyards, especially those where indigenous varieties such as Tămâioasa Românească, Busuioacă de Bohotin, Fetească regală, Fetească albă and Feteasca neagră, as well as foreign varieties such as Traminer roz, Riesling de Rhin, Chardonnay, Sauvignon or Cabernet Sauvignon, have been planted, have used clonal selections that lead to a much greater wine production in the Huși PDO area, where the climate is favourable (optimum solar radiation during the vegetation period for good grape ripening, a moderate climate in the hillier areas, moderate periods of frost as regards frequency and length, etc.). Moreover, these varieties have a significantly greater production potential.

As an indication of the climatic changes affecting the vineyards cultivated in the demarcated area from 1961 to 1990 and 1991 to 2018, and in line with the climate scenarios for Romania for 2001-2030, there is a steady increase in temperature between June and October of at least 1,4 °C/interval analysed, with a period of alternation of rainfall and periods of very high temperatures.

The conditions during the favourable climate years, in which the level of production is influenced, have also been added, so that wine yields can be exceeded at a maximum of 20 %.

Chapters V and VI of the specification and point 5 of the single document are amended.

4. Deletion of provisions on cultivation practices

A series of vineyard cultivation practices regarding fertilisation have been removed from the specification, as they are no longer necessary in the Huși PDO area.

Chapter VIII of the specification is amended, with no change to the single document.

5. Addition of a condition for harvested grapes

The condition has been added to the specification that, during years when the climate is unfavourable, the sugar content of the harvested grapes may be accepted at a level of 160 g/l, a value at which the quality of Huși PDO wines may be obtained by preserving the specific quality characteristics of the wines produced.

Chapter VII of the specification is amended, with no change to the single document.

6. Addition of conditions for the production of rosé wine

Provisions have been added to the specification with the possibility of producing white and rosé wines from Pinot Gris and Traminer Roz grape varieties as a consumer requirement for these wines; this meets the need to diversify the wines produced under this protected designation.

Chapter IX of the specification and point 5 of the single document are amended.

7. Derogation concerning the total alcoholic strength of the wines

A derogation has been added concerning the total alcoholic strength of the wines which have been produced without any enrichment in order to reach the value of 15 % vol. in the case of wines with the Huși PDO.

Chapter IX of the specification and point 5 of the single document are amended.

8. Addition of provisions on production technologies

The specification has been supplemented with an indication of the provisions whereby technological stages of production/oenological practices used in international practice and winemaking may also be allowed for the Huși PDO. However, their application should always preserve the specific quality of the PDO.

Chapter IX of the specification is amended, with no change to the single document.

9. Rewording of labelling/marketing conditions

Labelling of wines may be carried out in any way provided that the mandatory information is indicated in the same field of vision. The label and counter-label are not mandatory, labelling may be carried out in one or more components, have any shape and be made of any material and using any technique.

The labelling may also use the traditional term provided for in the legislation in force for wines which indicates the quality of the harvest as a result of the sugar content at harvest (when the grapes have noble rot).

Chapters XII and XIII of the specification and point 9 of the single document are amended.

10. Rewording of wine production conditions in case of non-compliance

Where an assessment of the production carried out by the producer at any stage of the production process, in terms of obtaining qualities/characteristics, finds that it is necessary to classify wine products in other categories, it is necessary to indicate in the specification the conditions under which production may be classified under other categories as laid down by the legislation in force.

Chapter XIV of the specification is amended, with no change to the single document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1. Name(s)

Huşi

2. Geographical indication type:

PDO - Protected Designation of Origin

3. Categories of grapevine products

Wine

4. Description of the wine(s)

1. Organoleptic characteristics

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

1.	Muscat Ottonel: straw yellow / intense yellow, typical aroma, harmonious, round.

2.	Sauvignon: greenish-yellow, intense aroma of vine flowers, elderflower, green citrus, fruity, melon notes appear with age.

3.	Pinot Gris: lemon yellow, greenish, scent of summer apples or freshly cut hay, slightly bitter.

4.	Fetească regală: lemon yellow, golden, scent of field flowers, after ageing freshly cut hay, honey, fruity.

5.	Fetească albă: straw yellow / greenish, typical aroma of vine in bloom, with typical natural subtlety.

6.	Riesling italian: straw yellow, fine aroma of ripening grape, slightly acidic taste, lively, fruity, round, pleasant after-taste.

7.	Zghihară de Huşi: greenish-yellow, fruity, aroma of green apple, citrus fruit, acidic taste.

8.	Chardonnay: golden yellow, aroma of acacia flowers, hint of fresh butter, floral, balanced acidity.

9.	Tămâioasă românească: greenish yellow/straw, distinct aroma of incense and basil.

10.	Aligoté: straw yellow, slightly bitter after-taste.

11.	Pinot noir: ruby red, aroma of cherries, strawberries, sour cherries, velvety.

12.	Fetească neagră: garnet red, aroma with hints of prunes, full-bodied.

13.	Cabernet Sauvignon: mauvish red, aroma of redcurrants, cranberries, blackberries, strongly herbal.

14.	Merlot: bright red/dark red, aroma of ripe forest fruit, velvety.

15.	Băbească neagră: bright red, floral bouquet, tannic.

16.	Busuioacă de Bohotin: onion skin colour, scent of rose petals and basil, long.

GENERAL ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):	15
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	10,5
Minimum total acidity:	4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	18
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)	250

2. Organoleptic characteristics

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

General organoleptic characteristics of the wines obtained from white varieties Grasă de Cotnari, Muscadelle, Semillon, Riesling de Rhin:

The aromatic and semi-aromatic varieties have above-average aromatic notes, which could create an accumulation either of aromas or of sugars, leading to clear differentiation between the products offered to consumers.

General organoleptic characteristics of the wines obtained from red varieties Syrah, Zweigelt, Sangiovese, Nebbiolo, Barbera:

the wines show an increased accumulation of coloured tannins and an equal concentration of their aromatic character. There are very high chances that this results from the change in the area’s climate in recent years.

GENERAL ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):	15
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):	10,5
Minimum total acidity:	4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):	20
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)	250

5. Oenological practices

5.1. Specific oenological practices

1. Cultivation practices

Cultivation practice

—	minimum 3 000 plants/ha or minimum 75 % plants, compared to the projected vineyard.

—	irrigation: permitted only during years of drought and with ONVPV (National Office of Vine and Wine) notification, when the water content in soil at a depth of 100 cm decreases to 50 % of the AHI (active humidity interval), by applying reasonable irrigation standards (400-600 m3/ha).

—	green harvesting - reducing the number of grape clusters at veraison when the potential production exceeds the maximum limits permitted under the specifications.

2. Production of the wines

Relevant restriction on making the wines

In certain climatic conditions which, in conjunction with the potential of certain varieties, have a positive impact on yields on plantations in the demarcated area, it would be possible to process wines which bear the Huși PDO also outside the demarcated area, in the neighbouring area where the wine centres offer the best capacity.

The neighbouring area designated for this purpose (for quick winemaking, fermentation at controlled temperature, preservation of the aromatic potential of certain varieties including Fetească regală, Sauvignon, Muscat Ottonel, Tămâioasă românească, Busuioacă de Bohotin) comprises the following towns and villages in Vrancea County:

—	Panciu, Movilița;

—	Odobești, Unirea, Jariștea, Bolotești;

—	Obrejița, Tâmboiești, Popești, Budești, Cârligele, Vârteșcoiu, Câmpineanca.

3. White or rosé wine production

Specific oenological practice

White and rosé wines can be obtained from the Pinot gris and Traminer roz varieties, depending on the producer’s choices, using technologies that preserve the quality of the PDO of the grapes and the wines produced from these varieties.

5.2. Maximum yields

1.	Aligoté, Fetească Regală, Zghihară de Huși, Crâmpoșie Selecționată, Francușă, Plăvaie, Donaris and Grasă de Cotnari varieties 16 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

2.	Riesling Italian, Semillon, Băbească Gri, Codană and Portugais Bleu varieties 16 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

3.	Riesling de Rhin, Muscadelle, Fetească Albă, Chardonnay, Aromat de Iași, Syrah, Sangiovese, Nebbiolo and Barbera varieties 15 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

4.	Muscat Ottonel, Sauvignon, Pinot Gris, Tămâioasă Românească, Șarba, Traminer roz, Busuioacă de Bohotin, Merlot and Zweigelt varieties 13 500 kilograms of grapes per hectare

5.	Cabernet Sauvignon, Fetească Neagră, Pinot Noir, Negru Aromat and Băbească Neagră varieties 12 600 kilograms of grapes per hectare

6.	White and rosé wines, Aligoté, Fetească Regală, Zghihară de Huși, Crâmpoșie Selecționată, Francușă and Plăvaie varieties 123 hectolitres per hectare

7.	White and rosé wines, Grasă de Cotnari, Donaris, Riesling Italian, Semillon, Băbească Gri, Codană and Portugais Bleu varieties 123 hectolitres per hectare

8.	Red wines, Codană and Portugais Bleu varieties 119 hectolitres per hectare

9.	White and rosé wines, Riesling de Rhin, Muscadelle, Fetească Albă, Chardonnay and Aromat de Iași varieties 115 hectolitres per hectare

10.	Red wines, Syrah, Sangiovese, Nebbiolo and Barbera varieties 111 hectolitres per hectare

11.	White and rosé wines, Muscat Ottonel, Sauvignon, Pinot Gris, Tămâioasă Românească, Șarba and Traminer roz varieties 104 hectolitres per hectare

12.	Red wines, Busuioacă de Bohotin, Merlot and Zweigelt varieties 100 hectolitres per hectare

13.	Rosé wines, Cabernet Sauvignon, Fetească Neagră, Pinot Noir, Negru Aromat and Băbească Neagră varieties 97 hectolitres per hectare

14.	Red wines, Cabernet Sauvignon, Fetească Neagră, Pinot Noir, Negru Aromat and Băbească Neagră varieties

93 hectolitres per hectare

6. Demarcated geographical area

The area demarcated for the production of wines with the ’HUȘI’ controlled designation of origin is situated in the following areas of Vaslui County:

1.1.

Designation ‘HUȘI’:

—	Town of Huși;

—	Municipality of Duda-Epureni, Epureni, Duda villages;

—	Municipality of Pădureni, Pădureni, Văleni, Leoști, Ivănești, Rusca villages;

—	Municipality of Tătărăni, Tătărăni, Crăsnășeni, Bălțați, Manțu villages;

—	Municipality of Stănilești, Stănilești, Pogănești villages;

—	Municipality of Buneşti-Avereşti, Buneşti, Avereşti, Armăşeni, Tăbălăeşti, Plopi villages;

—	Municipality of Arsura, Arsura, Fundătura, Pâhnești villages;

—	Municipality of Drânceni, Drânceni, Ghermănești, Râșești villages;

—	Municipality of Boțești, Boțești, Gugești villages;

—	Municipality of Banca, Banca, Stoișești, Sârbi, Țifu villages;

—	Municipality of Fălciu, Fălciu, Bozia, Copăceana, Rânzești villages;

—	Municipality of Blăgești, Blăgești, Igești villages.

1.2.

Subdesignation ‘VUTCANI’:

—	Municipality of Vutcani, Vutcani, Mălăiești villages;

—	Municipality of Roșiești, Roșiești, Gara Roșiești, Valea lui Darie villages;

—	Municipality of Şuletea, Şuletea, Râşcani, Fedeşti villages;

—	Municipality of Epureni, Horga village;

—	Municipality of Berezeni, villages of Berezeni, Rânceni, Mușata.

7. Main wine grape variety(-ies)

Aligoté B - Plant de trois, Plant gris, Vert blanc, Troyen blanc

Aromat de Iași B

Barbera N

Busuioacă de Bohotin Rs - Schwarzer Muscat, Muscat fioletovâi, Muscat violet cyperus, Tămâioasă violetă

Babeasca gri G

Băbească neagră N - Grossmuttertraube, Hexentraube, Crăcana, Rară neagră, Căldăruşă, Serecsia

Cabernet Sauvignon N - Petit Vidure, Bourdeos tinto

Chardonnay B - Gentil blanc, Pinot blanc Chardonnay

Codană N

Crâmpoşie selecţionată B

Donaris B

Fetească albă B - Păsărească albă, Poama fetei, Mädchentraube, Leanyka, Leanka

Fetească neagră N - Schwarze Mädchentraube, Poama fetei neagră, Păsărească neagră, Coada rândunicii

Fetească regală B - Königliche Mädchentraube, Königsast, Kiralyleanka, Dănășană, Galbenă de Ardeal

Frâncuşă B - Vinoasă, Mildweisser, Mustoasă de Moldova, Poamă creaţă

Grasă de Cotnari B - Dicktraube, Grasă, Köver szölö

Merlot N - Bigney rouge

Muscadelle B - Moscatello bianco, Mouscadet doux

Muscat Ottonel B - Muscat Ottonel blanc

Nebbiolo N

Negru Aromat N

Pinot Gris G - Affumé, Grauer Burgunder, Grauburgunder, Grauer Mönch, Pinot cendré, Pinot Grigio, Ruländer

Pinot Noir N - Blauer Spätburgunder, Burgund mic, Burgunder roter, Klăvner Morillon Noir

Pinot noir N - Spätburgunder, Pinot nero

Plăvaie B - Bălană, Plăvană, Poamă bălaie

Portugais Bleu N - Blauer Portugieser, Oporto, Portugieser

Riesling de Rhin B - Weisser Riesling, White Riesling

Riesling italian B - Olasz Riesling, Olaszriesling, Welschriesling

Sangiovese N - Brunello di Montalcino, Morellino

Sauvignon B - Sauvignon verde

Syrah N - Shiraz, Petit Syrah

Sémillon B - Semillon blanc

Traminer Roz Rs - Rosetraminer, Savagnin roz, Gewürztraminer

Tămâioasă românească B - Busuioacă de Moldova, Muscat blanc à petit grains

Tămâioasă românească B - Rumänische Weihrauchtraube, Tamianka

Zghihară de Huși B - Zghihară, Zghihară galbenă, Zghihară verde bătută

Zweigelt N - Blauerzweigelt, Negru de Zweigelt, Zweigelt blau

Şarba B

8. Description of the link(s)

Link with the demarcated area

The lithologic substrate forms a typologically diverse cover. There may be alternate steppe and forest steppe mollisols in clay-alluvial soil at forest level. Cambic chernozem and grey earth, the most widespread soils in the Huși Depression, are also the most valuable to vineyards, as their sandy/clay-like texture improves physical characteristics in combination with their basic bio-chemical properties: intense biological activity, significant humus content, high cation exchange capacity, neutral to slightly acidic reaction, high saturation of bases and nutrients.

The relief is formed by a series of wide round hills on the NW - SE axis. The hills have different orientations, morphological characteristics and gradients. This wine-growing area brings together different sub-units: one hilly area at around 300 m altitude and a lower foothill area with an average altitude of 150 m. The hills have different orientations, morphological characteristics and gradients which form the background for some of the vineyards in the area.

The Huși depression is delimited by high hills to the South, West and North and by the Prut valley to the East, and represents over 70 % of vineyards in the area. The valleys separating the hills of the region with slightly asymmetrical slopes begin in the coastal plain with hilly covering, forming a chain of depressions (Voloseni, Huși, Epureni, Novaci, Diuca, Fundătura, Arsura, Ghermănești) which, together with the higher hills of the depression, contain the most valuable vine-growing areas.

The climate is temperate continental with moderately continental aspects in the hills and hemiboreal in the Huși depression.

Global solar irradiance is approximately 120 kcal/CMP/year, the average duration of sunshine per year is 2 000 hours on high hills and over 2 100 hours in the Huși depression and the Prut valley. Considering the average annual radiative and solar thermal values, we note that they remain high throughout the growing season, which is beneficial for the development and the ripening of grapes.

The predominant winds are from the W, NW and N, which together account for over 60 % of annual winds and which have Föhn characteristics when blowing down the slopes of the hills to the depression. The NE wind, especially the Crivăț, increases frost, while the E and SE are hot and dry in the summer, increasing drought, both of which are felt intensively both in the Huși depression and the Prut floodplain.

The hydrographic network which drains the territory of the town is composed of two main arteries: the Drăslăvăț in the south and the Răiești, formed from the Turbata and the Șara in the north. They converge to the east of the town forming the river Huși. The Drăslăvăț and Răiești streams have torrential hydrographic characteristics. In spring, when the snow is melting rapidly as a result of increasing temperatures, or in summer after torrential rain, the streams carry large quantities of water, sometimes bursting their banks.

Wines produced in this area are dry to sweet or liqueur wines, white, rosé or red. They are generally light wines, not too extractive, with moderate alcohol content, slightly acidic in the north of the area with a ‘peak’ in acidity in the Averești area, where natural acidity can reach 11-12 grams of tartaric acid per litre in some years, making this area excellent for the production of sparkling wines.

Red wines are range from lightly coloured in the north of the area to intensely coloured in the south.

The first written documents referring to the existence of vineyards in the areas where today’s vineyards are located predates the first record naming the town of Huși. An act by Alexander the Good in 1415 sets out the boundaries of the old vineyard. Another document dated August 1436 shows that there were plantations of vines in the wine-growing areas of Epureni - Pâhnești - Huși. Contemporary documents state that vines were planted intensively in the Saca and Ochi vineyards between 1600 and 1662; the vines of Huși belonged to the local lord.

There are old records of the excellent quality of wines from Huși, written by foreign travellers in medieval Moldova, in particular Marco Bandinus in 1646: ‘Huși, an ancient settlement of Moldovan vineyards, produces a delicious and fragrant wine which is in high demand’. The great cartographer Dimitrie Cantemir, born in the village of Silișteni near Huși (the village has since been renamed in his honour) writes in ‘Descriptio Moldaviae’ that ‘the best wine is made in Cotnari, and that of Huși comes after’.

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

Labelling indication

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

The HUŞI protected designation of origin may be supplemented, depending on the interests of the producers, by one of the following single vineyard names (wines produced exclusively from these holdings): DUDA-EPURENI, PĂDURENI, DEALUL LOHAN, DEALUL DOBRINA, DEALUL ŞARA, DEALUL OCHI, DEALUL GALBENA, DEALUL OGRADA, DEALUL PODGORIA, CERDACUL LUI VODĂ, DEALUL MĂNĂSTIRII, AVEREŞTI, PÎHNEŞTI, ARSURA, DEALUL DRAGALINA, DEALUL ROŞIORI, PODINA, ARMĂŞENI, DEALUL PRIBEASCA, BUNEŞTI, MOVILA LUI ANDREI, DEALUL CÂLCEA, COLINA MĂNĂSTIRII, LA SCHIT, DEALUL LUI MOȚOC.

Marketing conditions

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

Link to the product specification

https://www.onvpv.ro/sites/default/files/caiet_de_sarcini_doc_husi_modif_cf_cererii_1422_14.06.2019_no_track_changes_0.pdf

(1) OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

15.10.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/44

Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2021/C 418/15)

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

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’

EU No: PGI-FR-02432 — 17 August 2018

PDO ( ) PGI (X)

1. Name(s)

‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’

2. Member State or Third Country

France

3. Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1. Type of product

Class 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

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

‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ is a U-shaped cured pork-liver cooking sausage in a natural casing. Slicing the sausage open reveals a coarse-cut filling of pork meat, fat and liver.

Smoking gives it its typical colour, which ranges from amber to brown and is not necessarily uniform throughout the sausage.

The morsels of filling are white and burgundy.

Sausages with a higher liver content tend to be blacker in colour.

The initial aroma is an intense combination of smokiness and pepperiness. This is followed by notes of dry-cured meat and pork liver.

The firmness of the meat morsels and the smooth and creamy texture of the pork liver give the product a varied texture in the mouth. The pork jowl fat is sometimes smooth and creamy, and sometimes crackly. A characteristic of this product is that it strikes just the right balance between saltiness, dry-cured meat, liver and fat, complemented by a powerful peppery note and a smoky taste that, though long and persistent, does not overpower the ensemble of flavours.

Chemical and physical characteristics

—	moisture content on a fat-free basis: ≤ 75 %

—	lipids (at 75% moisture on a fat-free basis): ≤ 45 %

—	collagen-to-protein ratio: ≤ 22 %

—	water-soluble carbohydrates (at 75% moisture on a fat-free basis): ≤ 2 %

Length and weight are as shown in the following table:

Casing	Casing diameter	Product length	Dry weight
Small intestine	28-42 mm	15-30 cm	200-500 g
Small intestine	28-42 mm	> 30 cm	> 500 g

The product is sold either whole or sliced.

Whole sausages are sold with the two ends tied or clipped shut and tied together with string to form a U-shape.

Sliced sausage is sold film-wrapped, vacuum-packed or in modified-atmosphere packaging.

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

The raw materials used to make ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ are obtained from hogs or from sows (up to a maximum of 50 % of the raw material weight) meeting the following requirements:

—	none of the pigs may be affected by the Rn- allele and the rate of halothane susceptibility must be less than 3 %;

—	the feed ration given to hogs in the growing/finishing stages and to dry and gestating sows must have a linoleic acid content of less than 1,9 %;

—	sows must be dry for at least 15 days after their piglets are weaned before they are slaughtered;

—	the pigs must have at least 2 hours’ lairage time after delivery to the abattoir before they are slaughtered;

—	hogs must have a hot carcass weight of ≥ 75 kg;

—	sows must have a hot carcass weight (without head and udders) of ≥ 120 kg;

—	ultimate pH must be between 5,50 and 6,20;

—	none of the following visual defects may be present: bloodspots, abscesses, staining with faecal dirt or conveyor lubricant, serious defects of colour or consistency;

—	the fat must be firm and white;

—	the meat must be pinkish to red in colour.

The pieces of the cut carcass used to make this product are the jowl, belly, trimmings, liver and heart. The pork pieces must be skinned correctly.

Jowl meat must make up at least 25 % of the sausage mixture because it gives the product its characteristic crackle.

Another essential ingredient is liver, making up between 30 % and 50 % of the mixture.

The cuts of pork are to be delivered fresh or frozen.

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

The entire process of making ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’ / ‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’, from mincing the meat to dry-curing, must take place in the geographical area.

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

Once the product has been sliced it must be packaged (sliced sausage no longer has its casing) using film-wrapping, vacuum-packing or modified-atmosphere packaging.

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

—

4. Concise definition of the geographical area

The geographical area for the protected geographical indication ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ consists of the two departments of Corse-du-Sud and Haute-Corse.

5. Link with the geographical area

The link between the geographical area and ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ is largely based on traditional know-how and specific characteristics.

‘Ile de Beauté’ (‘Isle of Beauty’) is a nickname often used for the French administrative region of Corsica, a mountainous island in the Mediterranean.

Corsica has a Mediterranean climate, characterised by hot, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The island is buffeted by two dominant winds: the nocturnal a tramuntana brings cool nights, and the diurnal u maestrale makes the days dry.

The local soil and climate combine to create ideal conditions for forest growth. Corsica is therefore a region of forests, with broadleaved trees – chestnut, oak and beech in particular – particularly rife across the entire island. A wooded area of 401 817 ha gives Corsica an overall forest cover rate of 46 %, well above the national average of 26,9 %. The most common broadleaved trees are oak trees, notably holm oak, which accounts for 22 % of the island’s tree cover. Cork oak can mainly be found in the centre and south of the island, making up around 15 % of its forests. An area of more than 200 000 hectares is covered with maquis shrubland, often growing up to 5 or 6 metres high and forming a ‘forest’ in itself. Beech trees can be found at elevations of 1 000 m and above, and the chestnut tree, which is particularly suited to Corsica’s natural environment, can be found throughout the island, from right on the shoreline all the way up to 1 200 m above sea level.

The conditions of island life have led the Corsican people to develop ways of making charcuterie that are tailored to the local climate and forest resources.

It is because of Corsica’s dry, windy climate that the dry-salting method of curing pork has been favoured over the cooking of charcuterie practised in northern France.

Making ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ is one of the oldest pork preservation traditions and is practised throughout Corsica. It is one of the products eaten quite soon after the pig is slaughtered. Cured meats have always played an important role in the Corsican diet and, consequently, its culture.

The meat used to make ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ is minced roughly, mimicking the result of the traditional method of dicing it with a knife.

The minced meat is then mixed with fine salt and may also be flavoured with wine or seasoning.

The use of large amounts of black pepper (between 2 and 6 g per kg) shows how the curing process has been influenced by the fact that temperatures are high for much of the year: pepper was originally used as a natural insect repellent and has over time become one of the key features of ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’ / ‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’.

These are hardwood-smoked sausages, which sets them apart from other products where the tendency is to use softwood for smoking. The wood comes from local broadleaved trees, the most commonly used species being those closest at hand and most widely available: oak, chestnut, beech, strawberry tree and heathers. This is a traditional practice that in the past was generally linked to chestnut-growing, which played an important role in the island’s agriculture. Local hardwood has always been used to smoke charcuterie because these species can be found throughout the island and because hardwood is more fire-resistant and gives off much less residue when burnt than softwood. This results in a ‘mild’ and very subtle smoking process, avoiding the saturation of taste that might come from using softwood. Smoking also makes it possible to preserve the sausages and finishes off their external protection from insects. Smoking meat is a custom found particularly in areas where Germanic tribes settled in large numbers. Corsica is therefore somewhat unusual in the Mediterranean basin for having this tradition of smoking meat.

Finally, natural ventilation is used when the sausages are dry-cured. This stage brings out the product’s organoleptic characteristics.

‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ is one of Corsica’s flagship products, the result of local know-how that reflects the island, its culture and its customs. The use of specific production methods passed down from generation to generation sets it apart from other products. This know-how is what gives it its characteristics:

—	its typical amber-to-brown tone, without uniformity of colour, and blacker hues found in sausages with a higher liver content;

—	an initial intense aroma combining smokiness and pepperiness, followed by notes of dry-cured meat and pork liver;

—	a varied texture in the mouth due to the firmness of the meat morsels and the smooth and creamy texture of the pork liver, with pork jowl fat that is sometimes smooth and creamy and sometimes crackly;

—	just the right balance between saltiness, dry-cured meat and fat;

—	a powerful peppery note which prolongs the assault on the palate, bolstering and extending the other flavours;

—	yet another pronounced flavour – pork liver;

—	a smoky taste that, though long and persistent, does not overpower the ensemble of flavours.

The specific method used to make ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ was developed on the basis of traditional practices – such as roughly mincing the meat. It is also linked to the island’s climate and natural resources: the use of black pepper in large quantities, hardwood-smoking using wood from local trees, and using natural ventilation in the dry-curing process are all practices that have been shaped by Corsica’s dry and windy climate, the conditions of island life, and the extent of the island’s forest cover.

The product has a varied texture because the meat is minced quite roughly. The use of jowl meat and liver gives the product highly unique characteristics of crackle and creaminess. The presence of liver and the flavouring used result in a complex, powerful bouquet of aromas.

The use of large amounts of black pepper gives the product the powerful peppery note that is a distinguishing feature of ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’.

Hardwood-smoking over wood from local trees (chestnut, oak, beech, etc.) gives the product a very complex palette of aromatic notes (a long and persistent smoky taste in the mouth), which is another major characteristic of ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’ / ‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’. It also gives the product its sustained smoky aroma and typical amber colour.

The use of natural ventilation in the drying room during the dry-curing process helps to stabilise and preserve the product and shape its organoleptic characteristics (striking the right balance between saltiness, dried meat and fat).

Know-how has been passed down from generation to generation, helped by the fact that Corsica is an island, a factor that has also enabled the characteristics of ‘Figatelli de l’Ile de Beauté’/‘Figatellu de l’Ile de Beauté’ to be preserved.

Reference to publication of the product specification

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

https://extranet.inao.gouv.fr/fichier/CDC-FigatelliIdB-RepCOM2.pdf

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

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 418

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 64 15 October 2021

Contents		page
	II Information
	INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2021/C 418/01	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10462 – H&F/Zooplus) ( 1 )	1
2021/C 418/02	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10427 – KKR/Telefónica/InfraCo) ( 1 )	2
2021/C 418/03	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10375 – ARCELORMITTAL/CONDESA TUBOS) ( 1 )	3
	European Central Bank
2021/C 418/04	NOTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK WITHDRAWING THE NOTICE ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS FOR BREACHES OF THE OBLIGATION TO HOLD MINIMUM RESERVES	4

	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	European Commission
2021/C 418/05	Euro exchange rates — 14 October 2021	5
2021/C 418/06	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 19 May 2021 concerning a preliminary draft decision in case AT.40324 – European Government Bonds ( 1 )	6
2021/C 418/07	Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Case AT.40324 – European Government Bonds ( 1 )	7
2021/C 418/08	Summary of Commission Decision of 20 May 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40324 — European Government Bonds) (notified under document C(2021)3489) ( 1 )	11
2021/C 418/09	Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 26 April 2021 concerning a preliminary draft prohibition decision in the case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds – Meeting by audio conference – via Skype for Business – Rapporteur: Estonia ( 1 )	15
2021/C 418/10	Final Report of the Hearing Officer Case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds ( 1 )	16
2021/C 418/11	Summary of Commission Decision of 28 April 2021 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds) (notified under document C(2021) 2871) ( 1 )	19
2021/C 418/12	Commission notice concerning the application of the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin or the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the Contracting Parties to this Convention	24

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1602
JPY	Japanese yen	131,65
DKK	Danish krone	7,4406
GBP	Pound sterling	0,84618
SEK	Swedish krona	10,0138
CHF	Swiss franc	1,0686
ISK	Iceland króna	149,60
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,7928
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,387
HUF	Hungarian forint	359,00
PLN	Polish zloty	4,5693
RON	Romanian leu	4,9500
TRY	Turkish lira	10,6104
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5644
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4361
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,0244
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6506
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,5642
KRW	South Korean won	1 375,51
ZAR	South African rand	17,1620
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,4683
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,5127
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 353,05
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8195
PHP	Philippine peso	58,778
RUB	Russian rouble	83,1225
THB	Thai baht	38,524
BRL	Brazilian real	6,3528
MXN	Mexican peso	23,8458
INR	Indian rupee	87,3355

	V Announcements
	PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY
	European Commission
2021/C 418/13	Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10460 – DMK/Uelzena/Niesky/Milchtrocknung Südhannover) – Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	33
	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2021/C 418/14	Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33	35
2021/C 418/15	Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs	44