COMMISSION OPINION

of 15 February 2023

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the dismantling of reactor working areas R1 and R2 of Unit 2 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant located in Lithuania

(Only the Lithuanian text is authentic)

(2023/C 60/01)

The assessment below is carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation (1).

On 22 June 2022, the European Commission received from the Government of Lithuania, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste (2) arising from the decommissioning and dismantling of reactor working areas R1 and R2 of Unit 2 of the Ignalina nuclear power plant.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 29 August 2022 and 26 October 2022, and provided by the Lithuanian authorities on 3 October 2022 and 11 November 2022, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

1.	The distance between the site and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Latvia, is 8 km. The border of the Republic of Belarus, as neighbouring country, is at a distance of 5 km.

2.

Normal dismantling operations will not lead to discharges of liquid radioactive effluents. During normal dismantling operations, the discharge of gaseous radioactive effluents is not liable to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State or in a third country that would be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the dose limits laid down in the Basic Safety Standards Directive (3).

3.

Solid radioactive waste will be transferred to appropriate treatment, storage or disposal facilities present on the Ignalina site. Non-radioactive solid waste and residual materials will be released from regulatory control for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling in compliance with the clearance criteria laid down in the Basic Safety Standards Directive.

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population of another Member State or a third country would not be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the reference levels laid down in the Basic Safety Standards Directive. In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form, arising from the dismantling of reactor working areas R1 and R2 of unit-2 of the Ignalina power plant located in Lithuania, both in normal operation and in the event of the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in a radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State or a of third country, in respect of the provisions laid down in the Basic Safety Standards Directive.

---

(1)  For instance, under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, environmental aspects should be further assessed. Indicatively, the Commission would like to draw attention to the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU; to Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, as well as to Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and to Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

(2)  The disposal of radioactive waste in the meaning of point 1 of Commission Recommendation 2010/635/Euratom of 11 October 2010 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty (OJ L 279, 23.10.2010, p. 36).

(3)  Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom (OJ L 13, 17.1.2014, p. 1).

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.10807 – VIASAT / INMARSAT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/02)

On 13 February 2023, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

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

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.10807 – VIASAT / INMARSAT, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 February 2023

extending the term of office of a Deputy Executive Director of Europol

(2023/C 60/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (1), and in particular Article 54(3) to (5) and Article 55 thereof,

Acting as the authority vested with the power to appoint the Executive Director and Deputy Executive Directors of Europol,

Having regard to the proposal of the Management Board of Europol of 14 October 2022,

Whereas:

(1)	Mr Jürgen EBNER was appointed as Deputy Executive Director of Europol by Council Decision of 24 October 2019 (2). The term of office of Mr Jürgen EBNER is due to expire on 31 October 2023.

(2)	The Deputy Executive Directors of Europol are appointed for a four-year period, extendable once in accordance with Article 54(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794.

(3)	The decision of the Management Board of Europol of 1 May 2017 sets out the procedure for the extension of the term of office of Deputy Executive Directors of Europol.

(4)	The Management Board informed the European Parliament that it intended to propose to the Council that Mr Jürgen EBNER’s term of office be extended, taking into account the assessment referred to in Article 54(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794.

(5)	By letter of 24 January 2023, the European Parliament informed the Council that it did not intend to invite Mr Jürgen EBNER to appear before its competent committee pursuant to Article 54(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794.

(6)	The Management Board presented the Council with an opinion proposing that the term of office of Mr Jürgen EBNER be extended and that his grade be reclassified as grade AD15.

(7)	On the basis of the proposal submitted by the Management Board the term of office of Mr Jürgen EBNER as Deputy Executive Director of Europol should be extended and his grade reclassified as grade AD15,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

---

(1)  OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53.

(2)  Council Decision of 24 October 2019 on the appointment of a Deputy Executive Director of Europol (OJ C 370, 31.10.2019, p. 4).

Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran

(2023/C 60/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of SOLTANI Hodjatoleslam Seyed Mohammad (no. 17), JAFARI-DOLATABADI Abbas (no. 19), MOHSENI-EJEI Gholam-Hossein (no. 21), SALAVATI Abdolghassem (no. 25), JAVANI Yadollah (no. 43), HAJMOHAM-MADI Aziz (a.k.a. Aziz Hajmohammadi, Noorollah Azizmohammadi) (no. 57), BAGHERI Mohammad-Bagher (no. 58), HOSSEINI Dr Seyyed Mohammad (a.k.a. HOSSEYNI Dr Seyyed Mohammad; Seyed, Sayyed and Sayyid) (no. 60), MIRHEJAZI Ali Ashgar (no. 66), MORTAZAVI Seyyed Solat (no. 69), JAFARI Reza (no. 77), MOUSSAVI Seyed Mohammad Bagher (a.k.a. MOUSAVI Sayed Mohammed Baqir) (no. 81), JAFARI Asadollah (no. 83), EMADI Hamid Reza (a.k.a. Hamidreza Emadi) (no. 84), ASHTARI Hossein (no. 92), VASEGHI Leyla (a.k.a. VASEQI Layla, VASEGHI Leila, VASEGHI Layla) (no. 95), Evin Prison (no. 2), Fashafouyeh Prison (a.k.a. Greater Tehran Central Penitentiary, Hasanabad-e Qom Prison, Greater Tehran Prison) (no. 3), Rajaee Shahr Prison (a.k.a. Rajai Shahr Prison, Rajaishahr, Raja’i Shahr, Reja’i Shahr, Rajayi Shahr, Gorhardasht Prison, Gohar Dasht Prison) (no. 4), persons and entities appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. Those persons and entities are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 24 February 2023, to the following address:

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1 Global and Horizontal Affairs

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu.

Any observations received before 10 March 2023 will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's periodic review, in accordance with Article 3 of Decision 2011/235/CFSP and Article 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(2023/C 60/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of Viktor Ivanovych Ratushniak, Vitalii Yuriyovych Zakharchenko and Serhiy Vitalyovych Kurchenko, persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

The Council has received information from the Ukrainian authorities that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures. The above-mentioned persons are hereby informed that he may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding their designation, before 22 February 2023, to the following address:

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

In this regard, the attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the list of designated persons in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014.

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 February 2023

(2023/C 60/06)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,0700
JPY	Japanese yen	143,31
DKK	Danish krone	7,4490
GBP	Pound sterling	0,88883
SEK	Swedish krona	11,1420
CHF	Swiss franc	0,9873
ISK	Iceland króna	154,30
NOK	Norwegian krone	10,9513
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	23,685
HUF	Hungarian forint	382,65
PLN	Polish zloty	4,7765
RON	Romanian leu	4,9009
TRY	Turkish lira	20,1685
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5500
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4334
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	8,3985
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7033
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,4287
KRW	South Korean won	1 376,52
ZAR	South African rand	19,4066
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	7,3351
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 193,38
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,7123
PHP	Philippine peso	59,011
RUB	Russian rouble
THB	Thai baht	36,738
BRL	Brazilian real	5,6090
MXN	Mexican peso	19,8720
INR	Indian rupee	88,4574

---

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

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/07)

Decision granting an authorisation

Reference of the decision (2)	Date of decision	Substance name	Holder of the authorisation	Authorisation number	Authorised use	Date of expiry of review period	Reasons for the decision
C(2023) 882	10 February 2023	Chromium trioxide EC No. 215-607-8, CAS No. 1333-82-0	Steel Color S.p.A., Via Per Pieve Terzagni 15, 26033 Pescarolo Ed Uniti (CR), Italy	REACH/23/1/0	As a colouring and hardening agent for stainless steel plates applied in the steel industry for the manufacture of cold-rolled, high quality textured sheet metal	31 December 2028	In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) )

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/08)

Decision granting an authorisation

Reference of the decision (2)	Date of decision	Substance name	Holder of the authorisation	Authorisation number	Authorised use	Date of expiry of review period	Reasons for the decision
C(2023) 884	10 February 2023	Chromium trioxide EC No. 215-607-8, CAS No. 1333-82-0	Husqvarna AB, EM-OFPM/ErK, 56182, Huskvarna, Sweden	REACH/23/2/0	Industrial use of a mixture containing chromium trioxide in functional chrome plating of saw chain cutter links in order to meet stay-sharp and durability requirements for use with chainsaws	31 December 2032	In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu)

Special report 04/2023:

‘The Global Climate Change Alliance(+) – Achievements fell short of ambitions’

(2023/C 60/09)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 04/2023: ‘The Global Climate Change Alliance(+) – Achievements fell short of ambitions’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=63424

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 260/2012 and (EU) 2021/1230 as regards instant credit transfers in euro

(2023/C 60/10)

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website https://edps.europa.eu)

On 26 October 2022 the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 260/2012 and (EU) 2021/1230 as regards instant credit transfers in euro (1).

The objective of the proposal is to improve the low uptake of euro instant credit transfers to allow for their benefits to realise, including efficiency gains for consumers, merchants, corporate users, payment service providers and financial technology companies, and public administrations including tax authorities. A second objective is to extend the means of payment at points of interaction, particularly for cross-border transactions. At the end of 2021, only 11 % of euro credit transfers sent in the EU were instant payments, although the architecture for instant payments in euro already exists, inter alia with the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) instant credit transfer scheme of 2017.

From the problems addressed by the proposal, two are of particular relevance to data protection: To address concerns by payers about the security of instant payments, the proposal would oblige payment service providers to verify whether the payment account identifier and the name of the payee provided by the payer match, prior to authorization of the payment by the payer. Where they do not match, the payment service provider shall notify the payer of any discrepancies detected and the degree of any such discrepancy. The EDPS welcomes the proposal and in particular the proposed matching that would give payers the chance to compare their data with the response from the system and make informed decisions whether it is safe to authorise the payment. Where this security feature is not needed, the proposal gives payers the possibility to opt-out, thus leading to less processing of personal data.

Under the current legislation, a high rate of rejected instant payments is caused by wrongly identifying persons who are involved in the instant credit transfer as persons on EU sanctions lists. The proposal provides for a requirement for sanctions screening in the form of very frequent checking of clients against EU sanctions lists, rather than for each individual transaction, to avoid the false positives. The EDPS welcomes that the proposal would direct the practice to a periodic verification method that can be executed with the necessary diligence, so that false positives can be avoided and data subjects do not experience unwarranted payment refusals.

The EDPS does not have any observations relating to the remaining provisions of the proposal.

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.

On 26 October 2022 the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 260/2012 and (EU) 2021/1230 as regards instant credit transfers in euro.

2.

The objective of the proposal is to improve the low uptake of euro instant credit transfers to allow for their benefits to realise, including efficiency gains for consumers, merchants, corporate users, payment service providers and financial technology companies, and public administrations including tax authorities. A second objective is to extend the means of payment at points of interaction, particularly for cross-border transactions.

3.

Two EU legal acts in the field of payments, the 2015 Directive on payment services in the internal market (PSD2) (2) and the Regulation on cross-border payments (3), already apply to instant payments and will continue to do so after the entry into force of this proposal. However, the SEPA Regulation (4) was chosen by the Commission to host the new provisions as it lays down technical and business requirements for all credit transfers in euro and instant payments in euro are a new category of credit transfers in euro.

4.

The present Opinion of the EDPS is issued in response to a consultation by the European Commission of 27 October 2022, pursuant to Article 42(1) of EUDPR (5). The EDPS welcomes the reference to this consultation in recital 23 of the proposal.

5.   CONCLUSIONS

17.

In light of the above, the EDPS welcomes the measures provided for by the proposal to verify data of a payee and to abstain from checking payment service users during an instant credit transfer.

18.

The compensatory regular verification with the EU sanctions lists, irrespective of a concrete transaction, does not raise any concerns.

---

(1)  COM(2022) 546 final.

(2)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on cross-border payments in the Union (OJ L 274, 30.7.2021, p. 20).

(4)  Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22).

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

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Regulation on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724

(2023/C 60/11)

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website https://edps.europa.eu)

On 7 November 2022, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (1).

The proposal aims to harmonise registration schemes and other transparency requirements for short-term rental (STR) services, as well as to enable, via the processing of data relating to STRs, the definition of appropriate policy responses when addressing issues such as affordable housing or the protection of the urban environment. The EDPS recalls in this regard, insofar as the processing concerns personal data, the need to comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The proposal establishes rules on registration of providers of STRs (hosts); lists the information that hosts must provide in order to receive a registration number; lays down the obligation for competent authorities to verify the information submitted by hosts, request additional information and suspend the validity of the registration number. It also provides rules on the obligation by online short-term rental platforms to ensure the validity of registrations by hosts.

Furthermore, the proposal sets out the condition according to which competent authorities will receive from online short-term rental platforms specific information about hosts’ activities through the Single Digital Entry Point (SDEP). The proposal also specifies which authorities can access the data collected and shared by online short-term rental platforms.

By this Opinion, the EDPS recommends amending Article 2 to make clear in the enacting terms of the proposal that the latter excludes the use of personal data processed pursuant to the proposal for law enforcement or for taxation and customs purposes.

According to the proposal online short-term rental platforms should not be required to report personal data related to guests. Indeed, ‘Activity data’, as defined under Article 3(11), to be transmitted by short-term rental platform to competent authorities, only refer to ‘the number of nights for which a unit is rented and the number of guests that stayed in the unit per night’. The EDPS considers that this is a key element of the proposal having regard to the need to ensure that the processing of personal data is limited to what is necessary and proportionate.

The EDPS also recommends specifying the categories of personal data to be submitted by hosts to the competent authorities of the Member States according to Article 5(3), and to clarify the wording referring to the maximum period during which personal data will be stored.

Concerning the verification by competent authorities and by online short-term rental platforms of the information submitted by hosts, the EDPS welcomes the information to be provided to hosts on the outcome of this verification, enabling the host to challenge or correct such information.

The EDPS also recommends specifying whether the SDEP would store personal data.

Lastly, the EDPS recommends specifying in Article 12(4) that this provisions refers to the aggregation of non-personal data

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.

On 7 November 2022, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on data collection and sharing relating to short-term accommodation rental services and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (‘the proposal’).

2.

The objective of the proposal is to harmonise and improve the framework for data collection and data sharing on short-term accommodation rentals (‘STRs’) across the European Union, and enhance transparency in the STR sector (2).

3.

More specifically, the proposal aims at establishing: (i) a harmonised approach to registration schemes for hosts, with an obligation on public authorities to maintain such schemes to obtain data for policy making and enforcement purposes (3); (ii) an obligation on online platforms to enable the hosts to display registration numbers (which will ensure compliance with registration requirements by hosts) and to share specific activity data about hosts and their listings with public authorities; (iii) specific tools and procedures to ensure that data sharing is safe, GDPR-compliant and cost-effective, for all players involved (4).

4.

The present Opinion of the EDPS is issued in response to a consultation by the European Commission of 7 November 2022, pursuant to Article 42(1) of the EUDPR (5). The EDPS welcomes the reference to this consultation in recital 38 of the proposal. In this regard, the EDPS also positively notes that he was already previously informally consulted pursuant to recital 60 of the EUDPR.

4.   CONCLUSIONS

23.

In light of the above, the EDPS makes the following recommendations: (1) to amend Article 2 to make clear in the enacting terms of the proposal that the latter excludes the use of personal data processed pursuant to the proposal for law enforcement or for taxation and customs purposes; (2) to delete the last sentence of recital 37; (3) to specify the categories of personal data that may be further required by the competent authorities of the Member States according to Article 5(3); (4) to clarify the wording referring to the storage limitation period in Article 5(5); (5) to consider the possible amendment of the first sentence of Article 10(4) in the light of the fact that SDEP might indeed store personal data; (6) to specify in Article 12(4) that this provisions refers to the aggregation of non-personal data.

---

(1)  COM(2022) 571 final.

(2)  See Explanatory Report, p 1.

(3)  It also has to be noted that the proposal, under Article 17, amends Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 1). As specified under recital 32, the proposal includes the procedures concerning the registration by hosts in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724, which established the single digital gateway, providing for general rules for the online provision of information, procedures and assistance services relevant for the functioning of the internal market.

(4)  See Explanatory Report, p 1.

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

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for an Interoperable Europe Act

(2023/C 60/12)

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website https://edps.europa.eu)

On 18 November 2022 the European Commission issued the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (Interoperable Europe Act) (1) (‘the proposal’). The objective of the proposal is to promote the cross-border interoperability of network and information systems which are used to provide or manage public services in the Union by establishing common rules and a framework for coordination on public sector interoperability, with the aim of fostering the development of interoperable trans-European digital public services infrastructure.

The EDPS acknowledges the benefits that can be derived from increased interoperability in the public sector and welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Commission to organize and institutionalise the process towards this goal. However, the EDPS also recalls that interoperability of network and information systems across sectors of public administration and across all levels of administration affects one of the most fundamental principles of data protection, the principle of purpose limitation. It is therefore crucial that the risks that are being created by removing technical barriers to information exchange, are considered further in the process. For this reason, the EDPS welcomes the provision requiring the Commission to consult the EDPS prior to authorising the establishment of regulatory sandboxes in cases where no EU institution, body or agency participates in the sandbox, and proposes a change in the wording.

The proposal would create a legal basis for the processing of personal data in regulatory sandboxes provided for in Article 11 and 12 of the proposal. The comments of the EDPS therefore concentrate on these provisions.

The EDPS recommends to consider whether possible use cases for the regulatory sandboxes exist that meet the standard of necessity, and if no such uses cases can be identified, to remove the legal basis for personal data processing from the proposal. He further identifies provisions seemingly without regulatory content, and proposes to amend them so that they would bear added value. In addition, the EDPS suggests to introduce an additional safeguard to ensure that test data does not become data in the production environment again, especially not after enriching it with data from other participants. He further suggests to require participants in regulatory sandboxes to provide the necessary essential information for a data protection evaluation by the supervisory authority to be carried out, with their request to the Commission to establish a sandbox, and proposes amendments to better address situations in which several supervisory authorities are competent to assess a proposed processing in a regulatory sandbox.

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.

On 18 November 2022 the European Commission issued the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures for a high level of public sector interoperability across the Union (Interoperable Europe Act) (‘the proposal’).

2.

The objective of the proposal is to promote the cross-border interoperability of network and information systems which are used to provide or manage public services in the Union by establishing common rules and a framework for coordination on public sector interoperability, with the aim of fostering the development of interoperable trans-European digital public services infrastructure. In particular, it aims at: — ensuring a consistent, human-centric EU approach to interoperability from policymaking to policy implementation; — establishing an interoperability governance structure designed to enable public administrations from all levels and sectors, as well as private stakeholders, to work together – with a clear mandate to agree on shared interoperability solutions (e.g. frameworks, open specifications, open standards, applications, or guidelines); — co-creating an ecosystem of interoperability solutions for the EU’s public sector, so that public administrations at all levels in the EU and other stakeholders can contribute to and re-use such solutions, innovate together and create public value.

3.

The need for stronger action in the field was recognised and concrete action was announced in several Commission communications, among them the Communication ‘Shaping Europe’s Digital Future’ (2), ‘A European Strategy for Data’ (3), ‘Identifying and addressing barriers to the Single Market’ (4) and ‘Digitalisation of justice in the European Union A toolbox of opportunities’ (5). In addition, the European Council called for an empowering interoperability framework in its Communication to the Delegations on the Conclusions of the Special meeting on 1 and 2 October 2020 (6). This initiative was included in the Commission work programme for 2022 (REFIT annex) (7).

4.

The present Opinion of the EDPS is issued in response to a consultation by the European Commission of 18 November 2022, pursuant to Article 42(1) of the EUDPR (8). The EDPS welcomes the reference to this consultation in recital 40 of the proposal. In this regard, the EDPS also positively notes that he was already previously informally consulted pursuant to recital 60 of the EUDPR.

6.   CONCLUSIONS

27.

In light of the above, the EDPS makes the following recommendations: (1) to consider whether possible use cases for the regulatory sandboxes exist that meet the standard, and if no such use cases can be identified, to remove the legal basis for personal data processing from the proposal; (2) to further define the relevant objectives of public interest in the context of the future Regulation and to be more specific on which particular objective referred to in Article 23(1) GDPR (9) and Article 25(1) EUDPR is being pursued; (3) to amend Article 12(6)(f) of the proposal so that it requires the sandbox participants to provide for effective technical and organizational arrangements for the fulfilment of data subjects’ rights; (4) to modify Article 12(6) as to prohibit any subsequent change of purpose, to ensure that test data does not become data in a production environment again, especially not after enriching it with data from other participants; (5) to amend Article 11(5) in a way that the purpose of the processing, the actors involved, their roles, the categories of data concerned, their source(s) and the envisaged retention period must be specified in the request within the meaning of Article 11(5) of the proposal, and that a data protection impact assessment should be underway or completed.

---

(1)  COM(2022) 720 final.

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Shaping Europe’s digital future (COM(2020) 67 final).

(3)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A European strategy for data, 19 February 2020 (COM(2020) 66 final).

(4)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Identifying and addressing barriers to the Single Market (COM(2020) 93 final).

(5)  Commission Communication on the Digitalisation of justice in the European Union - A toolbox of opportunities (COM (2020) 710 final).

(6)  Communication from the General Secretariat of the Council to the Delegations on the Conclusions of the Special meeting of the European Council (1 and 2 October 2020) (EUCO 13/20).

(7)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Commission work programme 2022 Making Europe stronger together (COM(2021) 645 final).

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

(9)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Council Regulation in matters of parenthood

(2023/C 60/13)

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website https://edps.europa.eu)

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood.

The objective of the proposal is to lay down common rules on jurisdiction and applicable law for the establishment of parenthood in a Member State in cross-border situations; common rules for the recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance in a Member State of court decisions on parenthood given, and authentic instruments on parenthood drawn up or registered, in another Member State; and create a European Certificate of Parenthood.

The EDPS welcomes the clear references made to the application of the GDPR (1), the EUDPR (2) and the e-Privacy Directive (3) as well as the determination of the controllership regarding the processing of personal data for the purposes of the proposal and the clarification provided regarding the processing of special categories of personal data.

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood (‘the proposal’) (4).

2.

The objective of the proposal is to ‘lay down common rules on jurisdiction and applicable law for the establishment of parenthood in a Member State in cross-border situations; common rules for the recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance in a Member State of court decisions on parenthood given, and authentic instruments on parenthood drawn up or registered, in another Member State’ and to create a European Certificate of Parenthood (5).

3.

This initiative was identified as a key action in the EU Strategy on the rights of the child (6) and in the EU LGBTIQ Equality Strategy (7).

4.

The present Opinion of the EDPS is issued in response to a consultation by the European Commission of 12 December 2022, pursuant to Article 42(1) EUDPR. The EDPS welcomes the reference to this consultation in recital 96 of the proposal. In this regard, the EDPS also positively notes that he was already previously informally consulted pursuant to recital 60 EUDPR.

3.   CONCLUSIONS

9.

In light of the above, the EDPS has no further comments on the proposal.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

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

(3)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37).

(4)  COM(2022) 695 final.

(5)  Article 1.

(6)  EU Strategy on the rights of the child, COM(2021) 142 final.

(7)  Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, COM(2020) 698 final. See explanatory memorandum, p. 2.

List of ports in EU Member States where landings and transhipment operations of fishery products are allowed and port services are accessible for third country fishing vessels, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008; List of ports in Northern Ireland where landings and transhipment operations of fishery products are allowed and port services are accessible for third country fishing vessels, in accordance with the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community

(2023/C 60/14)

The publication of this list is in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (1).

Member State	Designated ports
Belgium	Oostende Zeebrugge
Bulgaria	Бургас (Burgas) Варна (Varna)
Denmark	Aalborg Aarhus Esbjerg Fredericia Frederikshavn ((2)) ,  ((15)) ,  ((16)) Hanstholm Hirtshals Hvide Sande ((2)) ,  ((15)) ,  ((16)) København Skagen Strandby ((2)) ,  ((15)) ,  ((16)) Thyborøn ((2)) ,  ((15)) ,  ((16))
Germany	Bremerhaven Cuxhaven Rostock (transhipments not allowed) Sassnitz/Mukran (transhipments not allowed)
Estonia	None at the moment
Ireland	Killybegs ((2)) Castletownbere ((2)) Burtonport ((8)) ,  ((9)) Rathmullen ((8)) ,  ((9)) Greencastle ((8)) ,  ((9)) Howth ((8)) ,  ((10)) Ros An Mhil ((8)) ,  ((10)) Moville ((8)) ,  ((11)) ,  ((12)) ,  ((13)) ,  ((14)) Quigley’s Point ((8)) ,  ((11)) ,  ((12)) ,  ((13)) ,  ((14))
Greece	Πειραιάς (Piraeus) Θεσσαλονίκη (Thessaloniki)
Spain	A Coruña A Pobra do Caramiñal Algeciras Alicante Almería Arrecife Barbate ((2)) (transhipments and landings not permitted) Barcelona Bilbao Burela Cádiz Cartagena Castellón Celeiro Gijón Huelva Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Málaga Marín Palma de Mallorca ((2)) Pasaia (Pasajes) Puerto del Rosario Ribeira Santa Cruz de Tenerife Santander Tarragona Valencia Vigo (Área Portuaria) Vilagarcía de Arousa
France	Metropolitan France: Dunkerque Boulogne Le Havre Caen ((2)) Cherbourg en Cotentin ((2)) Barneville-Carteret Granville ((2)) Saint-Malo Roscoff ((2)) Brest Douarnenez ((2)) Concarneau ((2)) Lorient ((2)) Nantes - Saint-Nazaire ((2)) La Rochelle ((2)) Rochefort sur Mer ((2)) Port la Nouvelle ((2)) Sète Marseille Port Overseas France : Le Port (La Réunion) Fort de France (Martinique) ((2)) Port de Jarry (Guadeloupe) ((2)) Port du Larivot (Guyane) ((2))
Croatia	Ploče Rijeka Zadar – Gaženica Split – Sjeverna luka
Italy	Ancona Brindisi Civitavecchia Fiumicino ((2)) Genova Gioia Tauro La Spezia Livorno Napoli Olbia Palermo Ravenna Reggio Calabria Salerno Taranto Trapani Trieste Venezia
Cyprus	Λεμεσός (Limassol)
Latvia	Rīga Ventspils
Lithuania	Klaipėda
Malta	Valletta (Deepwater Quay, Laboratory Wharf, Magazine Wharf) Marsaxlokk Port (MT DIS Malta Freeport Distripark, MT MAR Marsaxlokk)
Netherlands	Vlissingen Scheveningen ((2)) Ijmuiden Harlingen Eemshaven Den Helder ((2)) Velsen ((6)) Amsterdam ((6)) Rotterdam ((6)) Stellendam ((7)) Den Oever ((7)) Oudeschild ((7)) Urk ((7)) Lauwersoog ((7)) Yerseke ((7))
Poland	Gdańsk Gdynia Szczecin Świnoujście ((2))
Portugal	Aveiro [PT AVE 1] ((2)) Caniçal [PT CNL 1] Horta [PT HOR 1] ((2)) Lisboa [PT LIS 1] Peniche [PT PEN 1] ((2)) Ponta Delgada [PT PDL 1] Porto [PT OPO 1] Setúbal [PT SET 1] ((2)) Sines [PT SIE 1] Viana do Castelo [PT VDC 1] ((2))
Romania	Constanța
Slovenia	None at the moment
Finland	Helsinki (transhipments not permitted)
Sweden
	Ellös ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Göteborg ((3)) ,  ((4)) Karlskrona Handelshamnen ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Kungshamn ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Lysekil ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Nogersund ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Rönnäng ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Simrishamn ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Slite ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Smögen ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Strömstad ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Trelleborg ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted) Träslövsläge ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted Västervik ((2)) ,  ((3)) ,  ((4)) ,  ((5)) (transhipments not permitted)

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community	Designated ports
Northern Ireland	Londonderry Kilkeel Portavogie Ardglass Warrenpoint Bangor (Co. Down) Belfast

---

(1)  OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1.

((2))  Not an EU Border Control Post (BCP)

((3))  Landings of all fishery products from vessels flying the flag of Norway, Iceland, Andorra and the Faroe Islands are allowed

((4))  Landings of more than 10 tons of herring taken in areas outside the Baltic Sea, mackerel and horse mackerel are not permitted

((5))  Landings of frozen fish are not allowed, other than from vessels flying the flag of Norway, Iceland, Andorra and the Faroe Islands if noted with (3).

((6))  Landings only accepted from fishing vessels above 59 m or a minimum tonnage of 1200 BT

((7))  Only for fishing vessels from the United Kingdom for maintenance work and after approval by the NVWA. Physical checks of the hold must take place on any day from Monday to Friday between 8:00 and 17:00 in a port not designated by (6) nor (7)

((8))  Landings only accepted from fishing vessels flying the flag of the UK and registered in Northern Ireland

((9))  Only from vessels less than 18 m and only landings of fresh non-TAC species

((10))  Only from vessels less than 26 m and only for demersal species (fresh and frozen)

((11))  Landings only accepted from vessels <18M LOA

((12))  Landings only accepted of species which are not subject to TAC limits

((13))  Landings only accepted of Live Bivalve Molluscs exempt from EU IUU regulation

((14))  Landings only accepted 14:00 to 20:00 Tuesday & Wednesday during February, March, October, November & December

((15))  Landing and transhipment operations of fresh fishery products and port services are permitted

((16))  Landing and transhipment operations of frozen fishery products are not allowed, other than from vessels flying the flag of the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway

Publication of a vacancy for the function of Director for Digital Transformation (DIGIT.A) in the Directorate-General for Informatics (grade AD 14), Brussels

COM/2023/10425

(2023/C 60/15)

The European Commission has published a vacancy notice (reference COM/2023/10425) for the function of Director for Digital Transformation (DIGIT.A) in the Directorate-General for Informatics (grade AD 14).

To consult the text of the vacancy notice in 24 languages and to submit your application, please visit this dedicated webpage on the European Commission’s website: https://europa.eu/!hD8fNd

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11002 – BDT CAPITAL PARTNERS / M+W GROUP / EXYTE)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/16)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11026 – PARTNERS GROUP / GHO / STERLING PHARMA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/17)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11005 – RENAULT / MINTH / JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/18)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11011 – EQT / TRESCAL)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/19)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11039 – ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA / THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES / TOM FORD INTERNATIONAL)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/20)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10998 – MAGNA INTERNATIONAL / MINTH GROUP / HUAINAN MAGNA MINTH EXTERIORS SYSTEMS JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 60/21)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

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

(2023/C 60/22)

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

COMMUNICATING THE APPROVAL OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT

‘Côtes du Rhône Villages’

PDO-FR-A0664-AM06

Date of communication: 23.11.2022

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Area in immediate proximity

Chapter I of the ‘Côtes du Rhône Villages’ PDO specification is amended at Section IV, ‘Areas and places in which the various operations are conducted’, point 3(a), ‘Area in immediate proximity’, in order to add municipalities so that the area in immediate proximity corresponds to the production area for ‘Côtes du Rhône’ PDO, the most generic designation that may be used for the wines produced under the pyramid-shaped hierarchical structure of protected designations of origin. The amendment aims to simplify operations and ensure consistency for producers.

The single document is amended under the point ‘Further conditions – area in immediate proximity’.

2.   Vineyard management

Chapter I of the specification is amended at Section VI, ‘Vineyard management’, point 2, ‘Other growing methods’, in order to include agri-environmental provisions aimed at preserving the characteristics of the physical and biological environment. The provisions in question relate to weeding, plastic mulching and soil preservation practices.

The single document is amended under the point ‘Wine-making practices’.

3.   Declaration requirements

Chapter II of the ‘Côtes du Rhône Villages’ PDO specification is amended at Section I, ‘Declaration requirements’,

—	point 1, ‘Claim declaration’, so as to include the date of submitting the claim statement for the volumes produced to the protection and management body;

—	point 10, ‘Irrigation declaration’, as these provisions are part of the control plan for the designation and do not need to be included in the specification.

These amendments do not affect the single document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name(s)

Côtes du Rhône Villages

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO - Protected designation of origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

Red, rosé and white wines

BRIEF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION

The wines are still and dry (with a fermentable sugar content not exceeding 4 g/l).

Red and rosé wines account for the bulk of production (98 %). The wines are round and generous with good colour intensity. They are suited to ageing for varying lengths of time depending on the soil type and the blend of varieties, as determined by producers based on their expertise. The Grenache N variety makes up at least 40 % of the blends, in combination with Syrah N and/or Mourvèdre N, which, as main varieties, account for at least 25 % of the variety mix.

The white wines are round in the mouth, sometimes with notes of spices and vanilla.

The wines must have a natural alcoholic strength by volume of at least 12 %. The red wines have a malic acid content of less than 0,4 g/l. The other analytical criteria are in line with EU rules.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)	14,5
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)	16,33
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

5.   Wine-making practices

5.1.   Specific oenological practices

1.

Oenological practices Specific oenological practice — Subtractive enrichment techniques are permitted for the red wines up to a concentration rate of 10 %; — To produce the rosé wines, winemakers are permitted to use oenological charcoal exclusively on press musts, without exceeding 20 % of the total volume made into wine by the operator for that harvest.

2.

Spacing between rows and plants Growing method — The spacing between rows is 2,50 m or less; — The area available for each plant is up to 2,50 m2, calculated by multiplying the distance between rows and the space between plants in the same row; — The spacing between plants in the same row is between 0,80 m and 1,25 m.

3.

Pruning – General provisions Growing method — The vines are pruned short (using the Gobelet or Cordon de Royat method), with a maximum of six spurs per plant. Each spur has a maximum of two buds; — The period for establishing the cordon is limited to 2 years. During this period, single or double Guyot pruning is allowed as defined below for the Viognier B variety.

4.

Pruning – Special provision Growing method The Viognier B variety may be pruned: — either using the single Guyot method, with a maximum of eight buds on the rod and one or two spurs with a maximum of two buds on each spur; — or using the double Guyot method, with a maximum of six buds on each rod and one or two spurs with a maximum of two buds on each spur.

5.	Irrigation Growing method Irrigation may be permitted.

6.

Growing methods to preserve the characteristics of the physical and biological environment Growing method To preserve the characteristics of the physical and biological environment which is a fundamental part of the local area: — chemical weed control is prohibited on headlands; — chemical weed control on more than 50 % of the vineyard surface, headlands not included, is prohibited. — Plastic mulching is prohibited; — No substantial alterations may be made to the shape and contours of the landscape or the natural pedological sequence of parcels intended for production of wine bearing the registered designation of origin.

5.2.   Maximum yields

50 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The grapes are harvested and the wines are made and developed in the following municipalities:

—	Department of Ardèche: Bourg-Saint-Andéol, Saint-Just-d’Ardèche, Saint-Marcel-d’Ardèche, Saint-Martin-d’Ardèche;

—	Department of Drôme: Bouchet, Mérindol-les-Oliviers, Mirabel-aux-Baronnies, Mollans-sur-Ouvèze, Montbrison, Nyons, (Le) Pègue, Piégon, Rochegude, Rousset-les-Vignes, Saint-Maurice-sur-Eygues, Saint-Pantaléon-les-Vignes, Suze-la-Rousse, Taulignan, Tulette, Venterol, Vinsobres;

—

Department of Gard: Aiguèze, Bagnols-sur-Cèze, Castillon-du-Gard, Cavillargues, Chusclan, Codolet, Comps, Cornillon, Domazan, Estézargues, Fournès, Gaujac, Laudun, Montfrin, Orsan, Pont-Saint-Esprit, Pujaut, Rochefort-du-Gard, Sabran, Saint-Alexandre, Saint-Etienne-des-Sorts, Saint-Gervais, Saint-Hilaire-d’Ozilhan, Saint-Marcel-de-Careiret, Saint-Michel-d’Euzet, Saint-Nazaire, Saint-Pons-la-Calm, Saint-Victor-la-Coste, Sauveterre, Saze, Tresques, Valliguières, Vénéjan;

—

Department of Vaucluse: Beaumes-de-Venise, Bédarrides, Bollène, Buisson, Cairanne, Camaret-sur-Aigues, Caumont-sur-Durance, Châteauneuf-de-Gadagne, Courthézon, Faucon, Grillon, Jonquières, La Roque-Alric, Lafare, Lagarde-Paréol, Mondragon, Morières-lès-Avignon, Orange, Piolenc, Puyméras, Rasteau, Richerenches, Roaix, Sablet, Saint-Marcellin-lès-Vaison, Saint-Romain-en-Viennois, Saint-Roman-de-Malegarde, Saint-Saturnin-lès-Avignon, Sainte-Cécile-les-Vignes, Séguret, Sérignan-du-Comtat, Sorgues, Suzette, Travaillan, Uchaux, Vaison-la-Romaine, Valréas, Vedène, Villedieu, Violès, Visan.

7.   Wine grape variety(-ies)

Clairette B

Grenache N

Grenache Blanc B

Marsanne B

Roussanne B

Viognier B

8.   Description of the link(s)

The geographical area extends between Montélimar and Avignon, across four departments in the southern part of the Rhône valley. The river Rhône runs right through the area, providing an essential link to the outside world.

During the Tertiary era, the Rhône valley was a Mediterranean ‘fjord’ extending as far as Vienne. As the sea receded, during the Quaternary era, the landscape acquired its current features through the effect of erosion (rain, winds, fluvial erosion). As a result, the landscape is dominated by slopes and terraces. The types of soil vary greatly and include river terraces, marns and soft limestone as well as soils created by erosion (marns, sand, sandstone or molasse).

The climate of the southern Rhône valley is Mediterranean with hot, dry summers and low annual rainfall. It rains mainly in autumn and in late winter. The climate is also strongly influenced by the Mistral, a dry and often violent northerly wind. The Mistral blows for 120 days a year on average, clearing the sky and ensuring plenty of sunshine. The mountains and hills framing the valley create a corridor effect that reinforces wind speeds (Rhône corridor Venturi effect).

The vineyards of the Rhône valley came into their own during the 18th century, and in the late 18th and the 19th century winegrowing expanded along the left river bank. In 1864, Napoleon III commissioned Jules Guyot, an agronomist, to write a report on the state and future of French vineyards. Guyot used the term ‘Côtes du Rhône’ (in the plural) to describe the vineyards extending from Saint-Gilles to Tournon via Beaucaire. The proximity of the Rhône meant that the wines had good access to markets.

Winegrowing became a major source of income. This position of strength led to recognition of ‘Côtes du Rhône’ as a registered designation of origin as from 1937.

Following on from this, producers expressed a wish to be able promote their best wines using specific geographical names. This led to the recognition, in 1966, of the possibility of combining the ‘Côtes du Rhône’ designation of origin with the names of a number of municipalities to specify the origin of the grapes, reflecting the reputation the wines had acquired. Then, in 1967, the ‘Côtes du Rhône Villages’ registered designation of origin was recognised. These efforts to organise production in a ‘pyramid’ structure encouraged the recognition of geographical units to complement the ‘Côtes du Rhône Villages’ registered designation of origin.

Some 350 000 hectolitres, including 5 000 hectolitres of white wine, were produced in 2010.

The wines are still and dry. Reds and rosés account for the bulk of production. The wines are round and generous with good colour intensity. They are suited to ageing for varying lengths of time depending on the soil type (sandy or sandy-loamy soils give lighter wines and stony or clayey soils richer, tannic wines) and on the blend of varieties, as determined by producers based on their expertise.

The wines are produced by blending the Grenache N variety with Syrah N or Mourvèdre N. At least 66 % of the blend is made up of these three main varieties. The white wines (accounting for 2 % of production) are round in the mouth, sometimes with notes of spices and vanilla.

The wines are made from grapes grown on carefully selected parcels in the ‘Côtes du Rhône’ production area. They are a particular and genuine expression of the natural and human potential associated with wines from the Rhône valley.

The wines produced thus bear witness to and are the result of a ‘unique diversity’ that producers have been able to harness, adapting the variety mix and selecting the best plots to take advantage of the favourable climate and the presence of the Rhône.

The Rhône valley has a climate well suited to growing vines, due both to the ‘cleansing’ effect of the Mistral, the violent, cold and dry wind that protects the vines from cryptogamic diseases, and to the good ripening conditions for the grapes, also linked to the frequent Mistral winds, of abundant sunshine and just the right level and concentration of rainfall.

Since the time of Greek colonisation the Rhône valley has provided a major maritime and later rail and land route for the wine trade, thus allowing a proud winegrowing tradition to be upheld for more than two millennia.

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

Supplementary geographical names

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

The name of the registered designation of origin may be followed by one of the complementary geographical names listed below if the wines meet the production requirements laid down in the specification for these names:

—	‘Chusclan’

—

‘Gadagne’

—

‘Laudun’

—	‘Massif d’Uchaux’

—

‘Nyons’

—	‘Plan de Dieu’

—	‘Puyméras’

—

‘Roaix’

—	‘Rochegude’

—	‘Rousset-les-Vignes’

—

‘Sablet’

—	‘Saint-Andéol’

—	‘Saint-Gervais’

—	‘Saint-Maurice’

—	‘Saint-Pantaléon-les-Vignes’

—	‘Sainte-Cécile’

—

‘Séguret’

—	‘Signargues’

—	‘Suze-la-Rousse’

—	‘Vaison-la-Romaine’

—

‘Valréas’

—

‘Visan’.

Broader geographical unit

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

The labels of wines bearing the registered designation of origin ‘Côtes du Rhône Villages’ may specify the larger geographical unit ‘Vignobles de la Vallée du Rhône’ under the conditions set out in the agreement signed between the protection and management bodies concerned.

Area in immediate proximity

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Derogation concerning production in the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

The area in immediate proximity, defined by derogation for the making and development of the wines, is made up of the territory of the following municipalities:

—

Department of Ardèche: Alboussière, Andance, Ardoix, Arlebosc, Arras-sur-Rhône, Baix, Beauchastel, Bidon, Boffres, Bogy, Champagne, Champis, Charmes-sur-Rhône, Charnas, Châteaubourg, Cheminas, Colombier-le-Cardinal, Cornas, Eclassan, Etables, Félines, Flaviac, Gilhac-et-Bruzac, Glun, Guilherand-Granges, Gras, Labastide-de-Virac, Lemps, Limony, Mauves, Ozon, Peaugres, Peyraud, Plats, Le Pouzin, Quintenas, Rompon, Saint-Barthélemy-le-Plain, Saint-Cierge-la-Serre, Saint-Cyr, Saint Désirat, Saint Etienne de Valoux, Saint-Georges-les-Bains, Saint-Jean-de Muzols, Saint-Julien-en-Saint-Alban, Saint-Laurent-du-Pape, Saint-Montan, Saint-Péray, Saint-Remèze, Saint-Romain-d’Ay, Saint-Romain-de-Lerps, Saint-Symphorien-sous-Chomérac, Saint-Vincent-de-Durfort, Sarras, Savas, Sécheras, Serrières, Soyons, Talencieux, Thorrenc, Toulaud, Tournon-sur-Rhône, Vernosc-les-Annonay, Vinzieux, Vion, La Voulte;

—

Department of Drôme: Albon, Aleyrac, Allex, Ambonil, Andancette, Aubres, La Baume-de-Transit, Beaumont-Monteux, Beausemblant, Benivay-Ollon, Bourg-les-Valence, Chamaret, Chanos-Curson, Chantemerle-les-Blés, Chantemerle-les-Grignan, Châteauneuf-de-Bordette, Châteauneuf-sur-Isère, Chavannes, Clansaye, Clérieux, Colonzelle, Condorcet, Crozes-Hermitage, Donzère, Erôme, Etoile-sur-Rhône, La Garde-Adhémar, Gervans, Grane, Granges-les-Beaumont, Les Granges-Gontardes, Grignan, Larnage, La Roche-de-Glun, Laveyron, Livron-sur-Drôme, Loriol-sur-Drôme, Mercurol, Montjoux, Montoison, Montaulieu, Montségur-sur-Lauzon, La Motte-de-Galaure, La Penne-sur-l’Ouvèze, Les Pilles, Pierrelatte, Pierrelongue, Le Poët-Laval, Ponsas, Pont-de-l’Isère, Propiac, Roche-Saint-Secret-Béconne, Roussas, Saint-Barthélemy-de-Vals, Saint-Donat-sur-l’Herbasse, Saint-Gervais-sur-Roubion, Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux, Saint-Rambert-d’Albon, Saint-Restitut, Saint-Uze, Saint-Vallier, Salles-sous-Bois, Serves-sur-Rhône, Solérieux, Tain-l’Hermitage, Teyssières, Triors, Valaurie, Valence, Veaunes;

—

Department of Gard: Les Angles, Argilliers, Aramon, La Bastide-d’Engras, Beaucaire, Bellegarde, La Capelle-et-Masmolène, Carsan, Collias, Connaux, Flaux, Le Garn, Goudargues, Issirac, Jonquières-Saint-Vincent, Laval-Saint-Roman, Le Pin, Lirac, Meynes, Montfaucon, La Roque-sur-Cèze, Pougnadoresse, Pouzilhac, Remoulins, Roquemaure, Saint-André-d'Olérargues, Saint-André-de-Roquepertuis, Saint-Bonnet-du-Gard, Saint-Christol-de-Rodières, Saint-Geniès-de-Comolas, Saint-Julien-de-Peyrolas, Saint-Laurent-de-Carnols, Saint-Laurent-des-Arbres, Saint-Laurent-la-Vernède, Saint-Paul-les-Fonts, Saint-Paulet-de-Caisson, Salazac, Sernhac, Tavel, Théziers, Vallabrix, Verfeuil, Vers-Pont-du-Gard, Villeneuve-lès-Avignon;

—	Department of Isère: Chonas-l'Amballan, Les Côtes d’Arey, Le-Péage-de-Roussillon, Reventin-Vaugris, Les Roches-de-Condrieu, Sablons, Saint-Alban-du-Rhône, Saint-Clair-du-Rhône, Saint-Maurice-l'Exil, Salaise-sur-Sanne, Seyssuel, Vienne.

—	Department of Loire: Bessey, La Chapelle-Villars, Chavanay, Chuyer, Lupe, Maclas, Malleval, Pélussin, Roisey, Saint-Michel-sur-Rhône, Saint-Pierre-de-Bœuf, Saint Romain-en-Jarez, Vérin;

—	Department of Rhône: Ampuis, Condrieu, Les Haies, Loire-sur-Rhône, Longes, Sainte-Colombe, Saint-Cyr-sur-le-Rhône, Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Tupin-et-Semons;

—

Department of Vaucluse: Althen-les-Paluds, Aubignan, Avignon, Le Barroux, Beaumont-du-Ventoux, Bédoin, Blauvac, Brantes, Caderousse, Caromb, Carpentras, Cavaillon, Châteauneuf-du-Pape, Le Crestet, Crillon-le-Brave, Entraigues-sur-la-Sorgue, Entrechaux, Flassan, Gigondas, Jonquerettes, Lamotte-du-Rhône, Lapalud, Loriol-du-Comtat, Malaucène, Malemort-du-Comtat, Mazan, Méthamis, Modène, Monteux, Mormoiron, Mornas, Pernes-les-Fontaines, Le Pontet, Saint-Hippolyte-le-Graveyron, Saint-Léger-du-Ventoux, Saint-Pierre-de-Vassols, Savoillan, Sarrians, Le Thor, Vacqueyras, Villes-sur-Auzon.

Link to the product specification

https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-d1effa7b-3f3e-42de-b294-aa6e27019ae0

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

Publication of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(2023/C 60/23)

This publication confers the right to oppose the application pursuant to Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) within two months from the date of this publication.

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION

‘Bianco di Castelfranco Emilia’

PGI-IT-A0508-AM04

Date of application: 19.10.2017

1.   Rules applicable to the amendment

Article 105 of Regulation (EU) n° 1308/2013 – Non-minor modification

2.   Description and reasons for amendment

2.1.   Change of PGI name from ‘Bianco di Castelfranco Emilia’ to ‘Castelfranco Emilia’

Changing the name from ‘Bianco di Castelfranco Emilia’ to ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ is necessary to be able to promote white wines with the Trebbiano and Moscato grape varieties indicated on the label. These wines, which have traditionally been produced in the area, could not be recognised as specific types because the name was based on the ‘Bianco’ (white) type. As described under ‘Links’, the Castelfranco Emilia area was renowned for winegrowing as early as the 19th century. The production area was then part of the Province of Bologna, whose local winegrowing traditions were based on cultivating white grapes, whereas the neighbouring Province of Modena mainly grew red grapes of the Lambrusco variety. The ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ name has thus been associated with light, fragrant white wines for at least a couple of centuries. Although the area now forms part of the Province of Modena, it still marks the exact boundary between the old Papal State and the Duchy of Modena with its mainly red wines based on the Lambrusco variety.

The amendment concerns Articles 1-9 of the specification and points 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the single document.

2.2.   Addition of new types

A number of new types labelled with the Moscato and Trebbiano varieties have been added. Provision is also made for producing wine from both varieties, indicating them on the label in their order of predominance in the end product. Adding these new types with indication of the grape variety has become necessary to adapt the product specification to the rapid developments in winegrowing that have taken place over the past 20 years in the area concerned. As vine plantings were renewed, wine farmers chose grape varieties that had traditionally been grown in the area and which guarantee excellent results in terms of quality and consumer satisfaction. The Trebbiano and Moscato varieties, which until the past century were used together with the predominant Montù variety, have over the past two decades become more important in their own right, establishing themselves as specific types. Major wine producers in the area have also followed this trend by paying better prices for grapes of these varieties, thus encouraging wine farmers to produce them.

This amendment concerns Articles 2, 4 and 6 of the specification and points 4, 5 and 8 of the single document.

2.3.   Grape production area – addition of a number of municipalities and formal amendment due to administrative reorganisation

The municipalities of Castelnuovo Rangone, Castelvetro di Modena, Formigine and Spilamberto, all located in the Modena foothills, have been added to the existing production area. Soil surveys carried out on the land of these municipalities show that they have the same type of soil as the original territory. Adding these municipalities to the production area allows grapes of the Trebbiano, Moscato and Montù varieties grown there to be better exploited. These white grapes have excellent quality characteristics, in particular high natural alcoholic strength by volume and a good primary aroma content. It should also be noted that the former municipalities of Bazzano and Crespellano (both in the Province of Bologna), which were part of the original production area, now belong to the new municipality of Valsamoggia. The description of the demarcated area has therefore been amended and now reads ‘as well as the entire territory of Bazzano and Crespellano in the municipality of Valsamoggia’ instead of ‘the municipalities of Bazzano and Crespellano’.

This amendment concerns Article 3 of the product specification and point 6 of the single document.

2.4.   Yields for the new Moscato and Trebbiano varieties

Since the combination of varieties has been amended by adding new types labelled with the Moscato or Trebbiano variety or both, the production yields have been set at 26 tonnes/hectare for Moscato and 29 tonnes/hectare for Trebbiano. In good years, the soil and climate characteristics of the territory allow high quality wines to be produced with the maximum yields indicated.

In addition, the article has been improved by listing partially fermented grape must types.

This amendment concerns Article 4 of the product specification and point 5 of the single document.

2.5.   Definition of the winemaking area

The winemaking area is extended to comprise the entire administrative territory of the Emilia-Romagna region.

Allowing winemaking in neighbouring areas within the Emilia-Romagna region is in line with the derogation provided for in the relevant EU legislation.

This amendment takes into account that semi-sparkling wines and partially fermented grape musts have traditionally been produced throughout the region.

The amendment concerns Article 5 of the product specification and point 9 of the single document (Further conditions – derogation from production in the demarcated geographical area).

2.6.   Characteristics on consumption of the new types labelled with the Moscato or Trebbiano variety or both

The characteristics on consumption of wines and partially fermented musts have been added.

Since the combination of varieties has been amended by adding new types labelled with the Moscato or Trebbiano variety or both, their minimum chemical and organoleptic characteristics when released for consumption have been set. The article has also been improved by laying down minimum chemical and organoleptic characteristics for each type in the wine, semi-sparkling wine and partially fermented grape must categories. When released for consumption, wines labelled with the Moscato and Trebbiano varieties, or the other way around, must have the characteristics typical of those varieties.

This amendment concerns Article 6 of the product specification and point 4 of the single document.

2.7.   Description and presentation – two varieties indicated on the label

In addition to the specific EU rule on two wine grape varieties appearing on the label, it has been specified that grapes from the variety with the lowest percentage must account for at least 15 % of the total. This is in accordance with the relevant national provisions and ensures that, where two grape varieties are indicated on the label of a grapevine product, the variety making up the smaller proportion also contributes to the product’s character by accounting for at least 15 % of the total quantity.

The amendment concerns Article 7 of the product specification and point 9 of the single document (Additional essential conditions – additional labelling provisions).

2.8.   Packaging – use of mushroom stoppers

Rules on packaging as regards the use of mushroom stoppers with capsules not higher than 7 cm have been laid down also for the ‘partially fermented grape must’ category. The text already provided for the use of such stoppers for the ‘semi-sparkling wine’ category, and the rules have now been clarified to explicitly include the possibility of using such stoppers also for the ‘partially fermented grape must’ category.

It should be noted that the use of mushroom stoppers has been permitted for both semi-sparkling wines and partially fermented grape musts ever since the original product specification was approved by way of the Ministerial Decree of 18 November 1995. The amendment is therefore not a new rule, but merely a clarification, which is appropriate to make the text more accurate.

This amendment concerns Article 8 of the product specification and point 9 of the single document.

2.9.   Adjustments regarding the name of the PGI and its various types

Some adjustments have been made due to the PGI name, with its various types, changing from ‘Bianco di Castelfranco Emilia’ to ‘Castelfranco Emilia’.

This amendment concerns Article 9 of the product specification and point 8 of the single document.

2.10.   Reference to the inspection body

The reference to the inspection body has been updated, with Valoritalia Srl indicated as the inspection body authorised by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food, Forestry and Tourism Policy.

This amendment concerns Article 10 of the product specification. There are no changes to the single document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of product

Castelfranco Emilia

2.   Geographical indication type

PGI - Protected Geographical Indication

3.   Categories of grapevine products

1.

Wine

8.	Semi-sparkling wine

11.	Partially fermented grape must

4.   Description of the wine(s)

1.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Bianco

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

White wine made from grapes of the Montù variety, which must account for at least 60 %, whereas the remaining 40 % may be obtained from other white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. Wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with a strong fragrance of flowers and grass. In terms of taste it is well-structured and flavourful, enveloping, harmonious and delicate with a slight acidic hint and a lingering after-taste. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

Minimum alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract (g/l): 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

2.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Bianco Frizzante

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Semi-sparkling white wine made from grapes of the Montù variety, which must account for at least 60 %, whereas the remaining 40 % may be obtained from other white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. Wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, fine and evanescent foam and a strong fragrance of flowers with notes of apple and fresh fruit. In terms of taste it is full-bodied, flavourful and harmonious, delicate and pleasantly acidic with a lingering after-taste. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,0 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

3.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Bianco partially fermented grape must

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Partially fermented white grape must made from grapes of the Montù variety, which must account for at least 60 %, whereas the remaining 40 % may be obtained from other white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. It is of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity with lively and evanescent foam. It has a strong fragrance of flowers with hints of fresh fruit. In terms of taste it is full-bodied, flavourful and harmonious, delicate and sweet.

Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,0 %;

Actual alcoholic strength by volume: minimum 1 % and maximum 3/5 of the total alcoholic strength by volume;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

4.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

White wine made from grapes of the Moscato Bianco variety, which must account for at least 85 %, whereas the remaining 15 % may be obtained from other white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. Wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity with a pleasantly intense fruity aroma with notes of peach and banana, and with floral notes of linden, wisteria and white flowers typical of the grape variety. In terms of taste it is flavourful and delicate, fresh and pleasant with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

5.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato Frizzante

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Semi-sparkling white wine made from grapes of the Moscato Bianco variety, which must account for at least 85 %, whereas the remaining 15 % may be obtained from other white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. Wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with fine and evanescent foam and a pleasantly intense fruity aroma with notes of peach and banana. It has floral notes of linden, wisteria and white flowers typical of the grape variety. In terms of taste it is flavourful and delicate, fresh and pleasant with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10,0 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

6.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato partially fermented grape must

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Partially fermented white grape must made from grapes of the Moscato Bianco variety, which must account for at least 85 %, whereas the remaining 15 % may be obtained from other white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. It is of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with fine and evanescent foam and a pleasantly intense fruity aroma with notes of peach and banana. It has floral notes of linden, wisteria and white flowers typical of the grape variety. In terms of taste it is flavourful and delicate, fresh, pleasant and sweet with just the right acidity.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10 %;

Actual alcoholic strength by volume: minimum 1 % and maximum 3/5 of the total alcoholic strength by volume;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

7.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

White wine made from grapes of the Trebbiano variety, which must account for at least 85 %, whereas the remaining 15 % may be obtained from other non-aromatic white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. Wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with a fresh and light fragrance of field flowers typical of the grape variety. In terms of taste it is soft, flavourful, delicate and harmonious with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

8.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano Frizzante

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Semi-sparkling white wine made from grapes of the Trebbiano variety, which must account for at least 85 %, whereas the remaining 15 % may be obtained from other non-aromatic white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. Wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with a fresh and light fragrance of field flowers typical of the grape variety. In terms of taste it is soft, flavourful, delicate and harmonious with just the right acidity and fine, evanescent foam. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

9.   Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano partially fermented grape must

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Partially fermented white grape must made from grapes of the Trebbiano variety, which must account for at least 85 %, whereas the remaining 15 % may be obtained from other non-aromatic white grape varieties suited for cultivation in the Emilia-Romagna region. It is of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with a fresh and light fragrance of field flowers typical of the grape variety. In terms of taste it is soft, flavourful, delicate and sweet with just the right acidity and fine, evanescent foam.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10,0 %;

Actual alcoholic strength by volume: minimum 1 % and maximum 3/5 of the total alcoholic strength by volume;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

10.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato-Trebbiano

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

White wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with a mildly fruity aroma of peach and banana and floral notes of linden, wisteria and white flowers. In terms of taste it is flavourful and delicate, fresh and pleasant with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet. The wine may be produced by mixing the grapes at the vinification stage, or at a later stage by blending wine obtained exclusively from the indicated grape varieties. When released for consumption, the wine must have the characteristics specified above that are typical of the original grape varieties.

Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,5 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

11.   Semi-sparkling ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato-Trebbiano

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Semi-sparkling white wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, fine and evanescent foam and a mildly fruity aroma of peach and banana. It has floral notes of linden and white flowers. In terms of taste it is flavourful and delicate, fresh and pleasant with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet. The wine may be produced by mixing the grapes at the vinification stage, or at a later stage by blending wine obtained exclusively from the indicated grape varieties. When released for consumption, the wine must have the characteristics specified above that are typical of the original grape varieties.

Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,0 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

12.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato-Trebbiano partially fermented grape must

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Partially fermented white grape must of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, fine and evanescent foam and a mildly fruity aroma of peach and banana. It has floral notes of linden and white flowers and a sweet taste with just the right acidity. It may be produced by mixing the grapes at the vinification stage, or at a later stage by blending partially fermented grape must obtained exclusively from the indicated grape varieties. When released for consumption, the wine must have the characteristics specified above that are typical of the original grape varieties.

Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,0 %;

Actual alcoholic strength by volume: minimum 1 % and maximum 3/5 of the total alcoholic strength by volume;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

13.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano-Moscato

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

White wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity and a delicate and fresh fragrance of field flowers, white flowers and linden with fruity aromatic notes of peach and banana. In terms of taste it is soft, flavourful and delicate with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet. The wine may be produced by mixing the grapes at the vinification stage, or at a later stage by blending wine obtained exclusively from the indicated grape varieties. When released for consumption, it must have the characteristics specified above that are typical of the original grape varieties. Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,5 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

14.   Semi-sparkling ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano-Moscato

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Semi-sparkling white wine of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, fine and evanescent foam and a delicate and fresh fragrance of field flowers, white flowers and linden with fruity aromatic notes of peach and banana. In terms of taste it is soft, flavourful and delicate with just the right acidity. Its sugar content ranges from dry to sweet. The wine may be produced by mixing the grapes at the vinification stage, or at a later stage by blending wine obtained exclusively from the indicated grape varieties. When released for consumption, it must have the characteristics specified above that are typical of the original grape varieties. Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,0 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

15.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano-Moscato partially fermented grape must

CONCISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION

Partially fermented white grape must of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, fine and evanescent foam and a delicate and fresh fragrance of field flowers, white flowers and linden with fruity aromatic notes of peach and banana. It has a sweet taste with just the right acidity. The wine may be produced by mixing the grapes at the vinification stage, or at a later stage by blending wine obtained exclusively from the indicated grape varieties. When released for consumption, it must have the characteristics specified above that are typical of the original grape varieties. Minimum alcoholic strength (in % volume): 10,0 %;

Actual alcoholic strength by volume: minimum 1 % and maximum 3/5 of the total alcoholic strength by volume;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 13 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

General analytical characteristics
Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)
Minimum total acidity	4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid
Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)
Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

5.   Wine making practices

a.   Essential oenological practices

Production of semi-sparkling wines and partially fermented grape must

Specific oenological practice

Re-fermentation methods used in production:

Wines in the semi-sparkling wine category are produced by means of secondary fermentation, usually in autoclaves (Charmat process). Traditional re-fermentation in the bottle is, however, also still practised.

Partially fermented grape musts containing carbon dioxide from fermentation are produced by fermentation in pressurised containers. Musts containing carbon dioxide from fermentation when released for consumption are produced in autoclaves in order for them to keep the right amount of carbon dioxide to produce the desired sparkle in the end product.

b.   Maximum yields

1.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Bianco 232 hectolitres per hectare

2.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Bianco Frizzante 232 hectolitre per hectare

3.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Bianco partially fermented grape must 232 hectolitre per hectare

4.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato 208 hectolitre per hectare

5.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato Frizzante 208 hectolitre per hectare

6.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato partially fermented grape must 208 hectolitre per hectare

7.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano 232 hectolitre per hectare

8.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano Frizzante 232 hectolitre per hectare

9.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano partially fermented grape must 232 hectolitre per hectare

10.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano-Moscato 228 hectolitre per hectare

11.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano-Moscato Frizzante 228 hectolitre per hectare

12.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Trebbiano-Moscato partially fermented grape must 228 hectolitre per hectare

13.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato-Trebbiano 219 hectolitres per hectare

14.	Semi-sparkling ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato-Trebbiano 219 hectolitres per hectare

15.	‘Castelfranco Emilia’ Moscato-Trebbiano partially fermented grape must 219 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

Wines and partially fermented grape musts eligible to bear the ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ PGI are made from grapes grown in a production area comprising:

—

the entire administrative territory of the following municipalities in the Province of Bologna: Anzola dell’Emilia, Argelato, Bologna, Calderara di Reno, Crevalcore, Sala Bolognese, San Giovanni Persiceto, S. Agata Bolognese and Zola Predosa, as well as the entire territory of Bazzano and Crespellano in the municipality of Valsamoggia;

—	the entire administrative territory of the following municipalities in the Province of Modena: Castelfranco Emilia, Spilamberto, Castelnuovo Rangone, Castelvetro di Modena, Formigine, Nonantola, Ravarino, San Cesario sul Panaro and Savignano sul Panaro.

7.   Main wine grapes variety(ies)

Montù B. – Montuni

Moscato Bianco B. – Moscato

Trebbiano Modenese B. – Trebbiano

Trebbiano Romagnolo B. – Trebbiano

Trebbiano Toscano B. – Trebbiano

8.   Description of the link(s)

8.1.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ – all categories: wine, semi-sparkling wine and partially fermented grape must

Soil, climate and cultivation factors relevant to the link

The production area of ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ wines extends across the middle Emilia plain straddling the Provinces of Bologna and Modena. Due to its location at the foot of the Apennines, the plain has typically continental temperatures and precipitation levels with hot summers and cold winters. The land of the middle Emilia plain is of alluvial origin with very gentle slopes. The chemical composition of its soils is characterised by a good supply of total nitrogen (N), and potassium (K) prevails over phosphorus (P). The physical-mechanical composition of the soil on the right bank of the Panaro river is of medium consistency tending towards clayey. The superficial and deep horizons often contain gravel due to river sediments deposited over the past millennium. The Panaro and Samoggia rivers and other minor streams flowing down from the Apennines, along with good subsoil water levels, ensure a sufficient supply of water.

As the soil and climate conditions of the Modena and Bologna plain favour the vine’s natural growth, the growing method is based on a trellising system of permanent cordons with drooping branches aimed at containing the vigorous growth of the plants and allowing buds to be evenly distributed, radiant energy to be captured and enough air and light to reach the bunches.

The soil, climate and growing conditions are uniform across the plains and foothills of the Provinces of Bologna and Modena, where the fertility of the land and the availability of potassium (K), known to be linked to the sugar accumulation process in the fruit, and the trellising system adopted by the vine growers, ensure optimum ripening of the grapes.

Human and historical factors relevant to the link

Historically the ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ territory marked the boundary between two rival cities, with Bologna belonging to the Papal States and Modena being the capital of the Duchy of Modena and Reggio Emilia, with links to the royal house of Habsburg-Lorraine. Arriving from the west across the Panaro river on the Sant’Ambrogio bridge near Modena, where the border between the Duchy and the Papal States was located, one would see vineyards growing Lambrusco vines cede to vineyards growing white grape varieties such as Montù, Trebbiano and Albana. In 1929 Castelfranco Emilia, until then a Bolognese town, became part of the Province of Modena.

The age-old white wine tradition of the area is confirmed by early ampelographic publications. The variety ‘Montù’, synonym ‘Montonego’, and the wine made from it, including in blends with other white grape varieties, was mentioned as early as 1823.

The human factors at play are the activities of local farmers and winegrowers who, thanks to their agronomic and oenological expertise, have managed to make a name for ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ wines.

The growing technique is based on espalier training systems with a single or double permanent cordon in order to contain the vigour of the plants and ensure that the grape bunches’ exposure to sunlight is sufficient for the grapes to reach optimum ripeness.

When ripe, the grapes have a good sugar content combined with high acidity and a good content of aromatic substances specific to the varieties grown.

This is reflected in the technical aspects of production in terms of the combination of vine varieties, the training methods – which ensure balanced production suited to the local soil and climate characteristics – and the wine-making practices, including natural re-fermentation in the bottle or in autoclaves.

8.2.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ – wine category

Information on specific product qualities that can be attributed to its geographical origin, and causal link with the geographical area.

‘Castelfranco Emilia’ PGI products in the wine category are of a straw yellow colour of varying intensity, with distinct floral aromas typical of the main grape varieties.

Their freshness and fragrant aromas contribute to a well-balanced taste. The wines are well-structured and flavourful, of moderate alcoholic strength and with a distinct, but not too dominant acidic note. Their sugar content ranges from dry to sweet.

They are ready to drink wines, not suited to ageing, that go well with pasta dishes and dishes of white meat or fish. The wines are best enjoyed within the year following the year of production so as to better appreciate their specific organoleptic characteristics.

The quality characteristics of the wines are influenced by the soil and climate conditions of the production area, which enjoys a temperate, cool and breezy climate, well-drained soils with good water availability, and marked temperature variations during the ripening season of the grapes. This ensures that the grapes ripen optimally and develop a good sugar and acidity content, which combines with the other organoleptic and quality characteristics linked to the vine varieties used, which are then reflected in the wines made from them.

Therefore, the causal link is based on specific product qualities that can be attributed to its geographical origin.

8.3.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ – semi-sparkling wine category

Information on specific product qualities that can be attributed to its geographical origin, and causal link with the geographical area.

In the Emilia-Romagna region, including the production area of ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ PGI wines, producing semi-sparkling wines is a long-standing tradition. As semi-sparkling ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ wines are much appreciated by consumers, their production is commercially viable.

When ripe, the grapes have a good sugar content combined with high acidity and a good content of aromatic substances specific to the varieties grown, and are therefore well suited to secondary fermentation for the production of wines in the ‘semi-sparkling wine’ category.

The production of semi-sparkling ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ wines is based on re-fermentation in autoclaves (Charmat process) or in bottles, allowing semi-sparkling wines with excess pressure to be obtained due to the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation.

The semi-sparkling wines are straw yellow in colour and have good acidity levels and a moderate alcoholic strength. The foam, obtained by means of re-fermentation in autoclaves or fermentation in the bottle, is fine, long-lasting and evanescent and brings out the floral and fruity aromatic notes of the main vine varieties of each type. The semi-sparkling wines are ready to drink and best enjoyed within the year following the year of production.

The quality characteristics of the semi-sparkling wines are influenced by the soil and climate conditions of the production area, which enjoys a temperate, cool and breezy climate, well-drained soils with good water availability, and marked temperature variations during the ripening season of the grapes. This ensures that the grapes ripen optimally and develop a good sugar and acidity content, which combines with other the organoleptic and quality characteristics linked to the vine varieties used, which are then reflected in the wines made from them.

Therefore, the causal link is based on specific product qualities that can be attributed to its geographical origin.

8.4.   ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ – partially fermented grape must category

Information on specific product qualities that can be attributed to its geographical origin, and causal link with the geographical area.

Production of a sweet and effervescent product in the partially fermented grape must category has developed in the production area of ‘Castelfranco Emilia’ PGI wines.

The soil conditions of the production area are characterised by fertile land of alluvial origin, with medium-consistency or clayey, sometimes loose and gravelly soils that make for productive vineyards.

The growing techniques, which have been refined over time, are based on espalier training systems designed to contain the vigour of the plants and ensure that the grape bunches’ exposure to sunlight is sufficient for the grapes to reach optimum ripeness.

When ripe, the grapes have a good sugar content combined with high acidity and a good content of aromatic substances specific to the varieties grown that are more pronounced in the partially fermented grape musts, which are characterised by a fine and evanescent foam.

The partially fermented grape must types are produced by means of re-fermentation in autoclaves of grape must or partially fermented grape must and thus have considerable excess pressure due to the carbon dioxide produced by fermentation.

The musts are straw yellow in colour and have good acidity levels, reduced actual alcoholic strength and a considerable level of residual sugar, as is typical of partially fermented musts. They have distinct floral and fruity aromas typical of the main vine varieties of each type. The foam is fine and evanescent. Again, the products are ready to drink and are best enjoyed within the year following the year of production.

The quality characteristics are influenced by the soil and climate conditions of the production area, which enjoys a temperate, cool and breezy climate, well-drained soils with good water availability, and marked temperature variations during the ripening season of the grapes. This ensures that the grapes ripen optimally and develop a good sugar and acidity content, which combines with the other organoleptic and quality characteristics linked to the vine varieties used, which are then reflected in the products made from them.

Therefore, the causal link is based on specific product qualities that can be attributed to its geographical origin.

9.   Essential further conditions

Labelling of types with two varieties indicated on the label (Trebbiano-Moscato and vice versa)

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

In addition to the specific EU rule on two wine grape varieties appearing on the label (Article 50(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33), grapes from the variety with the lowest percentage must account for at least 15 % of the total. In the national legislation this is provided for in Article 45 of Law 238/2016.

‘Castelfranco Emilia’ – wine, semi-sparkling wine and partially fermented grape must categories

Legal framework:

In EU legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

For products in the semi-sparkling wine and partially fermented grape must categories, ‘mushroom’ stoppers may be used on condition that any capsule covering the stopper is not higher than 7 cm.

This type of stopper can be used under a derogation provided for in EU legislation (Article 57(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33).

Winemaking area

Legal framework:

In EU legislation

Type of further condition:

Derogation from production in the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

The relevant EU legislation (currently Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2019/33) allows the vinification process, including secondary fermentation to obtain semi-sparkling wines and partially fermented grape musts, to take place not only in the demarcated production area for the grapes but also in neighbouring areas in the Emilia-Romagna region.

Link to the product specification

https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/15995

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

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

(2023/C 60/24)

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

SINGLE DOCUMENT

’Bohusläns blåmusslor'

EU No: PDO-SE-02616 — 17.6.2020

PDO (X) PGI ( )

1.   Name(s) [of PDO or PGI]

’Bohusläns blåmusslor'

2.   Member State or Third Country

Sweden

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Class 1.7: Fresh fish, molluscs, and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

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

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) cultivated in the archipelago around Bohuslän.

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are characterised by the following:

Physical properties:

Appearance: ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are thin-shelled, with two similar long half shells that taper at one end. The shell is often slightly wider at the base and somewhat flatter than in other areas of water. They are brownish-black in colour, with touches of blue. The inside of the shell is shiny and iridescent. It is pearly white with touches of light blue. The half shells are filled with varying quantities of roe (females) and milt (males).

Size: No more than 50 mussels per kg.

Length: Varies between 4,5 and 10 cm.

Mussel flesh content: At least 20 % of the live weight is mussel flesh.

Chemical characteristics:

Water: 85 g/100 g edible part

Protein: 10-12 g/100 g edible part

Fat: 1,4-1,6 g/100 g edible part

of which

Saturates: 0,25-0,4 g/100 g edible part

Mono-unsaturates: 0,3-0,4 g/100 g edible part

Polyunsaturates: 0,4-0,5 g/100 g edible part

of which

Omega-3 fatty acids: 0,30-0,35 g/100 g edible part

Omega-6 fatty acids: 0,10-0,15 g/100 g edible part

Organoleptic characteristics:

Colour: The muscle flesh is shiny, with a yellow to light brown tone that in berried females may have a pink tinge during the spawning season.

Aroma: A fresh, distinct impression of sea and seaweed, with notes of nuts and earth.

Flavour: Distinctly fresh, with notes of umami, nuts and crab. The latter flavours are more prominent during the spawning season between May and July.

Consistency: Smooth, with a solid texture that is firm to the bite without seeming chewy.

Storage life: ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ keep fresh for 7-11 days provided the cold chain is unbroken.

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

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ feed by filtering phytoplankton that are naturally present in the water.

Raw materials: The type of mussel cultivated for the production of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ is the blue mussel naturally present in the production area (Mytilus edulis). ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are grown freely suspended on lines, without contact with the sea floor, at a maximum depth of approximately 9 metres.

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are harvested year round at an age of at least 15 months.

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

The cultivation and cleaning of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ must take place in the geographical area described in point 4.

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

—

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

—

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

The production area for ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ consists of the archipelago around Bohuslän, from the Norwegian border in the north to the River Nordre in the south, as well as the section of the Bohuslän coast within 5 km of the coastline at normal water level in the following parishes and districts:

Hodal, Strömstad and Tjärnö parishes in Vätte shipping district;

Lur and Tanum parishes in Tanum shipping district;

Kville, Svenneby and Bottna parishes in Kville shipping district;

Tossene and Askum parishes in Sotenäs shipping district;

Bro, Brasäter and Lyse parishes in Stagenäs shipping district;

Håby and Foss parishes in Tunge shipping district;

Skredsvik, Herrestad, Högås, Bokenäs, Dragsmark and Bäve parishes in Lane shipping district;

Forshälla, Resteröd and Ljung parishes in Fräkne shipping district;

Skaftö, Torp, Myckleby, Långelanda, Stala, Tegneby, Röra and Morlanda parishes in Ordost shipping district;

Klövedal, Valla and Stenkyrka parishes in Tjörn shipping district;

Ödsmål, Norum, Jörlanda, Solberg and Hålta parishes in Inlands Nordre shipping district;

Lycke, Marstrand, Torsby and Harestad parishes in Inlands Söndre shipping district.

5.   Link with the geographical area

The link between the geographical area and the specific characteristics of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ is based both on the natural conditions of the area and on human factors.

Special characteristics of the product

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are grown on freely hanging lines without the mussels having contact with the sea floor. As a result, ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’, unlike several other types of mussels present on the market, are free from sand and clay.

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are thin-shelled and well fed (at least 20 % of live weight is mussel flesh). The half shells are usually slightly flatter and wider at the base than the half shells of blue mussels grown in other water areas.

‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ have shiny mussel flesh. ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ have a fresh smell of sea and seaweed, with hints of nuts and a fresh taste with noticeable notes of umami, nuts and crab. The texture is firm, which gives a pleasant mouthfeel.

Description of the natural factors relevant to the link

The production area for ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ is in the part of the Skagerrak that consists of the Bohuslän archipelago. This archipelago essentially consists of just one or two island chains separating the mainland from the high seas with its often strong sea state and strong winds.

The temperature, salinity and nutritient conditions of the water, together with the presence of pelagic larvae of the naturally occurring blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), form the natural conditions on which the cultivation of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ is founded.

The natural conditions for cultivation are defined by a number of sea currents. The most important of these is the Baltic current, which transports nutrient-rich water from the Baltic estuary in Öresund northwards on to the production area. As it moves northwards along the west coast of Sweden, the Baltic current gains further nutrients from rivers, mainly the rivers Göta and Nordre.

When the Baltic current reaches Skagerrak, it has a salt content of between 24 and 28 %. Its relatively low salt content means the current forms a layer above the much saltier water in Skagerrak (35-37 %). The surface water of the layer is maintained at an average temperature of 10-11 °C. Deeper in the layer, the average temperature in the water layer drops to 8-9 °C.

The levels of nutrients, mainly phosphorus and nitrogen, in the production area of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ vary throughout the year and, as a result of increased run-off from land, are higher in winter than in summer. The phosphorus and nitrogen content therefore varies between 0,4 and 1,0 μM and 15 and 21 μM respectively.

The temperature and layering of the nutritious surface water flowing on top of the saltier water in the production area favours the growth of the phytoplankton which constitutes the main diet of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ (phytoplankton content measured as chlorophyll A is 1,2 to 3,0 μg/litre). The high availability of food means that ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ grow rapidly, which in turn makes the mussels thin-shelled and well-fed, with mussel flesh that has a characteristic taste and aroma.

Description of the human factors relevant to the link

The cultivation of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ requires a flow of nutritious water with the right salinity and temperature to ensure that the mussels have good access to food and that the farms are naturally supplied with blue mussel larvae.

At the same time, strong winds and sea states have a negative impact on the cultivation of the blue mussels and on the ability to harvest ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ in autumn and winter, when conditions in the production area are often affected by storms and bad gales.

When selecting the location of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ cultivation sites, growers must take the above factors into account. The growers select suitable locations for cultivating ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ by combining traditional knowledge of local conditions in different parts of the production area (winds, wind directions and currents) with information on the characteristics of the marine environment (water temperature, salinity, nutrient conditions) from the analyses carried out regularly in the production area.

The characteristics of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ also depend on the way in which the mussels are handled after harvesting. In order to preserve the characteristics of the growing mussels, the growers chill the freshly harvested mussels with circulating seawater (5-6 °C) within five hours of harvesting. In the summer, between June and August, when the air temperature is relatively high, the mussels are chilled directly on board the harvesting vessel. The mussels harvested are cooled in water basins or large bags. The freshly harvested mussels can be stored in the cooling water for up to seven days without it affecting the characteristics of the mussels, provided that the mussels are rested during storage.

Before ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ are packed for sale, they are brushed free of seaweed and other growths. The mussels are then inspected manually to ensure that those sold meet the quality requirements of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’.

The cultivation of ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ is based on the sustainable management of the blue mussel population and requires growers to have knowledge of the lifecycle of the blue mussel and of the conditions for growing blue mussels in the natural conditions of the ‘Bohusläns blåmusslor’ production area.

Reference to publication of the specification

https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/globalassets/foretag-regler-kontroll/livsmedelsinformation-markning-halsopastaenden/skyddade-beteckningar/produktspecifikation_blamusslor_2022_10_12.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.