ISSN 1977-0677
Official Journal
of the European Union
L 125
English edition
Legislation
Volume 64
13 April 2021
|
ISSN 1977-0677 |
||
|
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125 |
|
|
|
||
|
English edition |
Legislation |
Volume 64 |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Text with EEA relevance. |
|
EN |
Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period. The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
II Non-legislative acts
REGULATIONS
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/1 |
COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/587
of 12 April 2021
implementing Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
On 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 359/2011. |
|
(2) |
On the basis of a review of Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (2), the Council has decided that the restrictive measures set out therein should be renewed until 13 April 2022. |
|
(3) |
One person designated in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 is deceased, and his entry should be removed from that Annex. The Council has also concluded that the entries concerning 34 persons and one entity included in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 should be updated. |
|
(4) |
Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 April 2021.
For the Council
The President
A. P. ZACARIAS
(1) OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.
(2) Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51).
ANNEX
Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (‘List of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2(1)’) is amended as follows:
|
(1) |
entry 16 (concerning HADDAD Hassan (alias Hassan ZAREH DEHNAVI) in the list headed ‘Persons’ is deleted; |
|
(2) |
the entries for the following 34 persons and one entity are replaced by the following: Persons
Entities
|
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/11 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/588
of 6 April 2021
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications
‘Stelvio’/‘Stilfser’ (PDO)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Stelvio’/‘Stilfser’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2007 (2) as modified by the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1132/2013 (3). |
|
(2) |
Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation. (4) |
|
(3) |
The notice of opposition lodged by Sweden on 23 December 2020 was not followed by a reasoned statement of opposition, therefore the opposition thereof is deemed have been withdrawn. |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Stelvio’/‘Stilfser’ (PDO) are hereby approved.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 April 2021.
For the Commission,
On behalf of the President,
Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
Member of the Commission
(1) OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2007 of 15 February 2007 registering certain names in the Register of protected designation of origin and protected geographical indications [Geraardsbergse mattentaart (PGI) — Pataca de Galicia or Patata de Galicia (PGI) — Poniente de Granada (PDO) — Gata-Hurdes (PDO) — Patatas de Prades or Patates de Prades (PGI) — Mantequilla de Soria (PDO) — Huile d’olive de Nîmes (PDO) — Huile d’olive de Corse or Huile d’olive de Corse-Oliu di Corsica (PDO) — Clémentine de Corse (PGI) — Agneau de Sisteron (PGI) — Connemara Hill Lamb or Uain Sléibhe Chonamara (PGI) — Sardegna (PDO) — Carota dell’Altopiano del Fucino (PGI) — Stelvio or Stilfser (PDO) — Limone Femminello del Gargano (PGI) — Azeitonas de Conserva de Elvas e Campo Maior (PDO) — Chouriça de Carne de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) — Chouriço de Abóbora de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) — Sangueira de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) — Batata de Trás-os-Montes (PGI) — Salpicão de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) — Alheira de Barroso-Montalegre (PGI) — Cordeiro de Barroso, Anho de Barroso or Borrego de leite de Barroso (PGI) — Azeite do Alentejo Interior (PDO) — Paio de Beja (PGI) — Linguíça do Baixo Alentejo or Chouriço de carne do Baixo Alentejo (PGI) — Ekstra deviško oljčno olje Slovenske Istre (PDO)], OJ L 46, 16.2.2007, p. 14.
(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1132/2013 of 7 November 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Stelvio/Stilfser (PDO)] (OJ L 302, 13.11.2013, p. 20).
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/13 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/589
of 9 April 2021
amending for the 320th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(5) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
|
(2) |
On 6 April 2021, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend one entry in the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. |
|
(3) |
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 April 2021.
For the Commission,
On behalf of the President,
Director-General
Directorate-General for Financial Stability,
Financial Services and Capital Markets Union
ANNEX
The identifying data for the following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:
‘Abu Bakar Ba’asyir (alias (a) Abu Bakar Baasyir, (b) Abu Bakar Bashir, (c) Abdus Samad, (d) Abdus Somad). Date of birth: 17.8.1938. Place of birth: Jombang, East Java, Indonesia. Address: Indonesia (in prison) Nationality: Indonesian.’
is replaced by the following:
‘Abu Bakar Ba’asyir (good quality alias: (a) Abu Bakar Baasyir; (b) Abu Bakar Bashir; (c) Abdus Samad; (d) Abdus Somad). Date of birth: 17.8.1938. Place of birth: Jombang, East Java, Indonesia. Nationality: Indonesian. Address: Indonesia. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 21.4.2006.’
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/15 |
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2021/590
of 12 April 2021
amending Annexes II and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aclonifen, boscalid, cow milk, etofenprox, ferric pyrophosphate, L-cysteine, lambda-cyhalothrin, maleic hydrazide, mefentrifluconazole, sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate, sodium p-nitrophenolate and triclopyr in or on certain products
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1), and in particular Article 5(1) and Article 14(1)(a) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
For aclonifen, boscalid, etofenprox, lambda-cyhalothrin, maleic hydrazide, mefentrifluconazole, sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate, sodium p-nitrophenolate and triclopyr, maximum residue levels (‘MRLs’) were set in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. For ferric pyrophosphate, L-cysteine and cow milk, no specific MRLs were set nor were those substances included in Annex IV to that Regulation, so the default value of 0,01 mg/kg laid down in Article 18(1)(b) thereof applies. |
|
(2) |
In the context of a procedure for the authorisation of the use of a plant protection product containing the active substance aclonifen on sweet peppers/bell peppers, herbal infusions and spices, an application was submitted in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for modification of the existing MRLs. |
|
(3) |
As regards boscalid, such an application was submitted for pomegranates, honey and other apiculture products following the use on rapeseed. As regards etofenprox, such an application was submitted for plums. As regards lambda-cyhalothrin, such an application was submitted for seed and fruit spices. As regards maleic hydrazide, such an application was submitted for chicory roots. As regards mefentrifluconazole, such an application was submitted for pome fruits, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, grapes, potatoes, sweet corn, maize, sunflower seeds, rapeseeds/canola seeds and sugar beet roots. As regards sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate, sodium p-nitrophenolate, such an application was submitted for grapes, strawberries, raspberries, currants, maize/corn, rice, wheat and hops. As regards triclopyr, such an application was submitted for kiwi fruits. |
|
(4) |
In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, those applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission. |
|
(5) |
The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and, where relevant, to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs (2). It forwarded those opinions to the applicants, the Commission and the Member States and made them available to the public. |
|
(6) |
As regards all applications, the Authority concluded that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs requested by the applicants were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime exposure to these substances via consumption of all food products that may contain them, nor the short-term exposure due to high consumption of the relevant products showed that there is a risk that the acceptable daily intake or the acute reference dose is exceeded. |
|
(7) |
As regards aclonifen, the applicant also submitted information previously unavailable during the review conducted in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. That information concerns residue trials and analytical methods. |
|
(8) |
As regards sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate, sodium p-nitrophenolate, the applicant also submitted such an information on analytical methods. |
|
(9) |
As regards boscalid, the applicant made the reference standard for 2-chloro-N-(4′-chloro-5-hydroxybiphenyl-2-yl)nicotinamide commercially available. |
|
(10) |
As regards maleic hydrazide, the Authority assessed an application with a view of setting an MRL for carrots in the framework of the conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance (3). In accordance with the existing Union guidelines on extrapolation of MRLs, it is appropriate to apply the MRL for carrots also to chicory roots. |
|
(11) |
As regards mefentrifluconazole, the Authority recommended increasing the MRLs for swine liver, bovine kidney and milk from cattle, sheep and goat, following the use of the substance on feed items. |
|
(12) |
In the context of the approval of the active substance ferric pyrophosphate, an MRL application was included in the summary dossier in accordance with Article 8(1)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4). That application was evaluated by the Member State concerned in accordance with Article 11(2) of that Regulation. The Authority assessed the application and delivered a conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance, where it concluded that the inclusion of ferric pyrophosphate in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is appropriate (5). |
|
(13) |
L-cysteine and cow milk have been approved as basic substances by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/642 (6) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1004 (7), respectively. The conditions of use of those substances are not expected to lead to the presence of residues in food or feed commodities that may pose a risk to the consumer. It is therefore appropriate to include those substances in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. |
|
(14) |
Based on the reasoned opinions and the conclusions of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter under consideration, the respective modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. |
|
(15) |
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
|
(16) |
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Annexes II and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 April 2021.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
(2) EFSA scientific reports available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu:
Reasoned opinion on the evaluation of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review for aclonifen. EFSA Journal 2020;18(5):6102.
Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue level for boscalid in honey. EFSA Journal 2019;17(11):5897.
Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue level for boscalid in pomegranates. EFSA Journal 2020;18(9):6236.
Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue level for etofenprox in plums. EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6192.
Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue levels for lambda-cyhalothrin in seed and fruit spices. EFSA Journal 2020;18(6):6110.
Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue levels for mefentrifluconazole in various crops. EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6193.
Reasoned opinion on the evaluation of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review for sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate and sodium p-nitrophenolate (sodium nitrocompounds). EFSA Journal 2020;18(3):6060.
Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue level for triclopyr in kiwi. EFSA Journal 2020;18(7):6191.
(3) Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance maleic hydrazide. EFSA Journal 2016;14(6):4492.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1).
(5) Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance ferric pyrophosphate. EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5986.
(6) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/642 of 12 May 2020 approving the basic substance L-cysteine in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 150, 13.5.2020, p. 134).
(7) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1004 of 9 July 2020 approving the basic substance cow milk in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 221, 10.7.2020, p. 133).
ANNEX
Annexes II and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended as follows:
|
(1) |
in Annex II, the columns for aclonifen, boscalid, etofenprox, lambda-cyhalothrin, maleic hydrazide, mefentrifluconazole, sodium 5-nitroguaiacolate, sodium o-nitrophenolate, sodium p-nitrophenolate and triclopyr are replaced by the following: “Pesticide residues and maximum residue levels (mg/kg)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(2) |
in Annex IV, the following entries are inserted in alphabetical order: ‘cow milk’, ‘ferric pyrophosphate’ and ‘L-cysteine’. |
(*1) Limit of analytical determination
(*2) Pesticide-code combination for which the MRL as set in Annex III Part B applies.
(1) For the complete list of products of plant and animal origin to which MRLs apply, reference should be made to Annex I.
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/42 |
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/591
of 12 April 2021
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO))
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(3)(b) thereof,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application from Cyprus to register the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) identifying a product whose geographical area corresponds to the surface of Cyprus, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
|
(2) |
The Commission received in total 17 notices of opposition, namely from Dairy Australia (Australia) on 21 October 2015; Consortium for Common Food Names (United States) on 22 October 2015; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) on 23 October 2015; Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd. (Cyprus) on 26 October 2015; Hayvan Ureticileri ve Yetistiricileri Birligi (Cyprus) on 26 October 2015; Fatma GARANTI (Cyprus) on 26 October 2015; Sut Imalatcilari Birligi (SUIB) (Cyprus) on 26 October 2015; Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Cyprus) on 26 October 2015; Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce (Cyprus), on 26 October 2015; Navimar Food Gida Imalati ve Gida (Turkey) on 26 October 2015; D.M Gida Maddeleri Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti (Turkey) on 26 October 2015; Avunduk Ithalat Ihracat Gida ve Zirai Aletler Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. (Turkey) on 26 October 2015; U.T.CO Trading Company – W.L.L. – (Kuwait) on 27 October 2015; Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) and New Zealand Specialist Cheesemakers Association (New Zealand) on 27 October 2015; Dr Nutrition (United Arab Emirates) on 27 October 2015; FFF Fine Foods Pty Ltd (Australia) on 28 October 2015 and Finland on 3 November 2015. |
|
(3) |
The Commission forwarded these notices of opposition to Cyprus, with the exception of the notice of opposition of Finland and the notices from the six natural or legal persons resident or established in Cyprus. The notice of opposition sent by Finland was lodged with the Commission after the expiration of the deadline set out in Article 51(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. In accordance with that Article, natural or legal persons established or resident in the Member State from which the application was submitted are excluded from the opposition procedure as they already had the opportunity to participate in the national opposition procedure. In this specific case, the oppositions from the six natural or legal persons established or resident in Cyprus had been dismissed in the context of the national opposition procedure following an examination of the merits of the submitted grounds for opposition. Accordingly, neither the notices of opposition nor the subsequent reasoned statements of opposition from the six natural or legal persons established or resident in Cyprus are deemed admissible. |
|
(4) |
Nine reasoned statements of opposition were subsequently received by the Commission, namely from Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) and New Zealand Specialist Cheesemakers Association (New Zealand) on 15 December 2015; Dairy Australia (Australia) on 17 December 2015; the United Kingdom on 21 December 2015; Consortium for Common Food Names (United States) on 21 December 2015; Navimar Food Gida Imalati ve Gida (Turkey) on 21 December 2015; D.M Gida Maddeleri Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti (Turkey) on 21 December 2015; Avunduk Ithalat Ihracat Gida ve Zirai Aletler Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. (Turkey) on 21 December 2015; U.T.CO Trading Company – W.L.L. – (Kuwait) on 21 December 2015 and FFF Fine Foods Pty Ltd (Australia) on 24 December 2015. The notice of opposition lodged by Dr Nutrition (United Arab Emirates) was not followed by a reasoned statement of opposition, therefore the opposition thereof is deemed to have been withdrawn. |
|
(5) |
After examining these reasoned statements of opposition and finding them admissible, the Commission invited all the interested parties, in accordance with Article 51(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, to engage in appropriate consultations in view of reaching an agreement. |
|
(6) |
Consultations were carried out between Cyprus and the nine admissible opponents within a period of 3 months. The deadline for the consultations between Cyprus and the United Kingdom was extended by one additional month at the request of Cyprus. |
|
(7) |
No agreement was reached within the designated timeframe in any of those nine opposition procedures. The information concerning the consultations carried out between Cyprus and the opponents was duly provided to the Commission. Therefore, the Commission should decide on registration taking into account the results of these consultations in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
|
(8) |
The arguments of the opponents as set out in their reasoned statements of opposition and in the consultations carried out can be summarised as follows. |
|
(9) |
The product specification indicates that the conditions for registration as a PDO are satisfied because the product concerned is made with sheep and goat’s milk which comes from local breeds – the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat – and their crosses that have adapted to the island’s climate. However, the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat were introduced in Cyprus in the 1950s and 1930s, respectively; additionally, there is no evidence of specific morphology or genetic or productive characteristics of such Cypriot sheep. The existence of a Cypriot type of Chios sheep is accordingly to be challenged. The relatively recent introduction of sheep and goats whose milk is reputed having a major role in determining the unique characteristics of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ would also be a reason to rebut the claimed antiquity (16th century) of the related tradition. |
|
(10) |
Animal feed is cited as a relevant factor in the application. However, the application does not specify how the feeding and grazing is uniquely connected with the Cyprus plants, taking into consideration that the geographical area of grazing encompasses the entire island. No evidence is given of the availability of these plants throughout the year and all over Cyprus. No evidence is given of the difference in the feeding among animals that are grazing all year round, animals of semi intensive farming and those of intensive farming. Further, no evidence is given that the cheese production level would be maintained while reducing the cow’s milk share in the raw materials. There would be insufficient evidence that the feed has a consistent impact on the quality or characteristics of the cheese produced. |
|
(11) |
As regards the human factor, even if Cyprus dairies may have established a specific ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ know-how, this does not confirm the existence of the required link between the characteristics of the product and the Cyprus geographical environment for the purposes of PDO registration, as such know-how and production methods may be replicated virtually everywhere. |
|
(12) |
The application does not indicate that ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ is the product of ‘authentic and unvarying local methods’ as this name has been applied to a diversity of cheeses made with methods and raw materials that have varied over time and which continue to evolve. |
|
(13) |
The product specification is alien to the product actually marketed: the majority of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ produced in Cyprus is made using varying proportions and types of milk, with a predominance of cow’s milk. There are indications that 95 % of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ produced in Cyprus would currently have an 80-95 % cow’s milk content. |
|
(14) |
The product specification fails to respect the traditions of the whole of the geographical area indicated. The product specification concerns a traditional product made throughout the island of Cyprus, yet the application fails to include specific traditional characteristics of the cheese made by the producers of the Turkish Cypriot community. Thus, the product specification does not identify a product as actually marketed throughout the island. In particular, use of mint should be optional and raw milk should be allowed. |
|
(15) |
Several statements included in the product specification are not supported by scientific evidence, such as the claim that ovine and caprine milk is important for the taste of the cheese; the differentiation in morphology of the Cypriot type of Chios sheep; the fact that the low molecular weight of free fatty acids affects the taste, smell and aroma of the cheese; the fact that the endemic plants that are mentioned as feed for animals contain essential oils; whether terpene is present in the Sarcopoterium spinosum and in which quantity, how terpenes is transferred from ingestion of the Sarcopoterium spinosum to the milk and subsequently to the halloumi, the presence of Lactobacillus cypricasei in fresh ovine Halloumi and the impact of fresh or dry mint on the sensory characteristics. |
|
(16) |
The product specification designates the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment of the Republic of Cyprus as the sole competent authority for controls on compliance with the product specification in respect of the entire delimited geographical area. However, as that Ministry does not exercise effective control throughout the production area set out in the specification, a valid system for the verification of compliance with the product specification is not ensured. |
|
(17) |
The product specification does not refer to any delegated control body. Such failure is not remedied by the non-legally binding Common understanding on a temporary solution for ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’, to be implemented pending the reunification of Cyprus (‘the Common Understanding’), reached under the guidance of the President of the Commission on 16 July 2015, that refers to the appointment of the internationally accredited body Bureau Veritas in accordance with Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (which has in substance been replaced by Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) on official controls) as the body in charge of the control tasks provided for by the former Regulation. |
|
(18) |
‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ is produced in Bulgaria, Germany and Greece. Outside the Union, it is produced in Australia, Canada, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, several Middle Eastern countries (Iraq, Lebanon, Syria), New Zealand, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Entries and results in prestigious cheese contests confirm the well-established production of ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ in locations outside Cyprus. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the name ‘Halloumi’ is claimed to have been used for cheese produced since the 1980s, with an estimate of about 300 tons per year. In addition, such products produced outside Cyprus and bearing the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ are marketed in a large number of Member States and third countries. |
|
(19) |
A range of registered trade marks include the term ‘Halloumi’ in Czechia, Germany, Greece, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Trade marks referring to ‘Hellim’ also exist in Germany, Sweden and Turkey. Hence, the proposed PDO would conflict with existing names, trade marks and products and is accordingly liable to jeopardise them in case of registration. In particular, the said presence in the Union market of specific trade marks including the name ‘Halloumi’ should prevent the Commission from registering such name since Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 provides that a name is not to be registered where, in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used, that registration would be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product. |
|
(20) |
‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ is produced and marketed both inside and outside the Union. Standards for the production of ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ have been issued in Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The use of this name in the Union beyond the boundaries of Cyprus is well established. The fact that the name ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ is commonly used on cheese products which are not of Cypriot origin is a relevant piece of evidence which tends to show that it has become a generic term. |
|
(21) |
In addition, ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ standards issued by Cyprus did not refer to any particular sheep, goat or cattle breeds or cross-breeds. Consumers consider ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ as a type of product. The Canada Federal Court and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) (now the European Union Intellectual Property Office) are of the view that ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ is a generic type of cheese (4). |
|
(22) |
Consumers in the Union and in third countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, associate ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ with a cheese type that has a high melting point, allowing it to be grilled or fried, a rubbery ‘squeaky’ texture, and a salty taste. These taste, textural and functional properties of ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ are what make it unique for consumers, irrespective of the origin of the cheese, which is not relevant. |
|
(23) |
The Commission has assessed the arguments exposed in the reasoned statements of opposition in the light of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, taking into account the results of the consultations carried out between the applicant and the opponents, and it has concluded that the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ should be registered. The Commission considers in particular the following. |
|
(24) |
Regarding the morphology of eligible sheep and goat, it stems from the information contained in the single document that the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat, introduced in the 1950s and 1930s respectively, have acquired morphological and production characteristics that diverged from those of the populations of origin, following a long-standing national breeding programme. There are incidentally numerous commercial references available on the internet as to international trade ongoing for decades of ‘Cyprus Chios sheep’ and ‘Cyprus Damascus goat’, from Cyprus to 20 countries, referring to the international reputation gained by Cyprus in its successful selective breeding thereof. |
|
(25) |
Thus, the development of unique sheep and goat breeds used in production of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ as well as the development of the cheese itself does not negate the existence of origins of the product in the 16th century. In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, a ‘designation of origin’ is a name which identifies a product: (a) originating in a specific place, region or, in exceptional cases, a country; (b) whose quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment with its inherent natural and human factors; and (c) the production steps of which all take place in the defined geographical area. Therefore, to be registered as a PDO, it is sufficient that the name complies with those requirements. The production conditions of a given cheese may legitimately evolve gradually over time and are not required to remain unaltered for centuries. |
|
(26) |
Regarding the impact and availability of the feed, the single document indicates, inter alia, that the ‘local Cypriot vegetation consumed by the animals either fresh or dried, has a crucial effect on the quality of the milk and consequently the specific characteristics of the cheese (Papademas, 2000). The presence of the bacillus Lactobacillus cypricasei (lactobacillus from Cypriot cheese), which has been isolated only from Cypriot Halloumi, testifies to the link between the island’s microflora and the product (Lawson et al., 2001)’. Scientific surveys have been cited to demonstrate the link between the animal feed and the quality of the cheese made with the milk of the animals concerned. It has been shown, for example, that volatile compounds were detected in milk, originating from the plants used to feed the animals (Papademas et al. 2002). Moreover, based on other surveys, (Palmquist et al. 1993), the ratio of fat in milk, which is a crucial factor that affects the organoleptic characteristics of the cheese, depends on the diet of the animals. Based on another survey (Bugaud et al. 2001), the terpene content of milk is directly linked to the terpene content of the feed obtained by grazing. |
|
(27) |
Moreover, the grazing of plants which are endemic of Cyprus, such as thyme and Sarcopoterium spinosum, and the ingestion of these plants, lead to the presence of related aromatic characteristics in the final product. |
|
(28) |
Further, there are no provisions in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requiring that the delimited area should offer an absolute homogeneity, nor that a PDO should refer to fully standardised and absolutely uniform products. Therefore, the opponents’ claims that local plants having an impact on product specificities are not available all over Cyprus are not relevant. |
|
(29) |
The product specification of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ has not been altered as compared with the related legislative standard adopted by Cyprus in 1985. Therefore, a potential scarcity of raw material available for the production of this cheese would not per se render the prescriptions on milk percentage or feedstuffs included in the product specification unattainable. In addition, Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not require quantitative production thresholds. Notwithstanding the above, a transitional period has been granted by Cyprus to the operators not able to meet the product specification requirements, in order for them to fully align their production to the requirements in that respect, allowing them, under stringent conditions, to provisionally use a lower amount of sheep and goat’s milk. |
|
(30) |
Regarding the human factors and know-how related to the production of this cheese, there are numerous references showing that it has been produced in Cyprus since 1554. The single document indicates in that respect that ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ is considered traditional to Cyprus, since it has played a very important role in the life and diet of the island’s inhabitants, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Knowledge of the production process has been handed down from one generation to the next. Both its characteristic folded shape and its specific property of not melting at high temperatures are due to this traditional production process that has been passed down through the generations. |
|
(31) |
Given worldwide migration of Cypriot citizens over centuries, the specific methods used to produce this cheese might have been copied elsewhere, yet the production of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ is still inseparably and uniquely linked to the culinary culture of Cyprus. |
|
(32) |
The human factor cannot be considered as an isolated element. Human and natural factors are meant to interact, thus determining the specific final result. |
|
(33) |
Furthermore, Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not require that the name to be registered refer to a product elaborated through centuries in an unvarying method. It merely requires the product specification to include the methods, if any, to obtain that specific product which are different from the standard methods used to obtain that kind of product. Therefore, the eligibility of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ may not be challenged on the ground that the production methods have not remained absolutely immutable. |
|
(34) |
Other allegations in opponents’ claims relate to the discrepancy between the product described in the product specification and the one actually produced as regards the respective proportion of sheep, goat’s and cow’s milk and certain specific characteristics of the production methods followed by some producers of the Turkish Cypriot community that do not use mint or pasteurised milk. |
|
(35) |
However, firstly, such allegations have not been accompanied by any solid evidence. Secondly, the requirements concerning the addition of mint, the use of pasteurised milk and the respective proportion of sheep, goat’s and cow’s milk are already included in the relevant Cyprus standard adopted in 1985. Therefore, any product not conforming to such standard could not be legally marketed as ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ within Cyprus, independently of the fact that it may be marketed in the territory of third countries where this cheese would not be currently protected. Furthermore, an exhaustive national opposition procedure over several years has been carried out at national level on the current application, and natural or legal persons disagreeing with the legally required production standards have had the opportunity to raise fully their related claims in front of the administrative and judicial authorities of Cyprus. In that framework, as indicated, a transitional period has been granted to these operators. |
|
(36) |
As regards the alleged lack of scientific evidence in respect of various parameters and characteristics included in the product specification, requesting overly detailed information is unreasonable, excessively burdensome and irrelevant. Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not require such a detailed technical and scientific description of each parameter or characteristic of the product for which the PDO concerned is to be used. |
|
(37) |
The Commission has assessed the Cypriot application and it has not identified any manifest error therein. The opponents did not submit sufficiently reasoned evidence showing that the Cypriot application is inherently flawed. They essentially invoke insufficient scientific grounds for the application. The facts, statements, reasoning and references submitted by Cyprus are deemed sufficiently convincing to justify the registration of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ as PDO under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
|
(38) |
The product specification of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ contains numerous elements qualifying the name as Protected Designation of Origin under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012: the Mediterranean climate, characterised by hot/dry summers and mild/wet winters; the terrain, as mountains on the island receive a relatively high amount of rainfall, and affect the hydrology and environment of the lower lying areas; that, owing to its geological structure, climate, geographical position and surrounding sea, Cyprus has one of the richest floras in the Mediterranean, despite its small size; the local breeds of fat-tailed sheep and of the local Machaira and Pissouri goats, as well as other breeds which are well-adapted to the local climate; the local practice of cooking the product at a high temperature for a specific length of time without melting, so producing high levels of certain basic chemical compounds that help determine the taste of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (mainly lactones and methyl ketones); the typical folding of the curds, as part of the production process, which sets ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ apart from all other cheeses; and the addition of Cypriot mint, which gives the final product its characteristic aroma. |
|
(39) |
Pursuant to the division of powers between the Commission and the Member States concerning the registration procedure of geographical indications under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission should verify that a given application is not tainted with manifest errors, while competent national authorities, including, if applicable, national courts, are best placed to assess the technicalities of a given application before the application for registration is submitted to the Commission. |
|
(40) |
Pending the reunification of Cyprus, Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10 on Cyprus to the 2003 Act of Accession suspends the application of the acquis in the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control. Consequently, the Cypriot Government may not be held liable for any consequences of not supervising the application of Union law in those areas. Pursuant to Article 3 of that Protocol, nothing is to preclude measures with a view to promoting the economic development of those areas. Such measures are not to affect the application of the acquis under the conditions set out in the Accession Treaty in any other part of the Republic of Cyprus. A bi-communal working group may be constituted in relation to ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ since experience has shown such groups play an important role. |
|
(41) |
Within this framework, considering that the natural and human factors related to the production of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ are objectively, traditionally and historically common to the entire island of Cyprus, the whole island of Cyprus should be included when delimiting the eligible geographical area of this cheese. |
|
(42) |
Accordingly, in order to allow the registration to cover the entire eligible geographical area of production of this cheese, and bearing in mind the requirement of Article 46(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, operators willing to adhere to the specification of this cheese should be able to do so without facing obstacles to participation that would prove discriminatory or otherwise not objectively founded. An effective and lasting control mechanism, in accordance with Articles 35 to 40 of that Regulation, ensuring compliance by operators with the product specification throughout the eligible geographical area should therefore be laid down. Bearing in mind that the acquis is suspended in the areas in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control, a workable arrangement should be exceptionally and temporarily established pending the reunification of Cyprus, in order to guarantee that controls may be efficiently performed throughout the island, as the lack thereof would constitute grounds for cancellation in accordance with Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
|
(43) |
Article 37(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 provides that in respect of protected designations of origin verification of compliance with the product specification, before placing the product on the market, may be carried out by delegated bodies as defined in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. Delegated bodies are separate legal persons to which certain official control tasks have been delegated. Within that framework and in line with the Common Understanding, as well as due to the exceptional situation in the areas of the Republic of Cyprus where the application of the acquis is suspended, it is appropriate that the internationally accredited body Bureau Veritas is appointed as the body in charge of the control tasks provided for by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 in respect of the ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ specification throughout Cyprus. Registration of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’, as envisaged by the Common Understanding, is conditional upon those control tasks being delegated to Bureau Veritas in accordance with Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625. Indeed, Bureau Veritas has acquired a significant and long-standing expertise in checking PDOs, and is able to ensure the establishment of an effective, objective and impartial overall mechanism for the performance of the official controls related to the verification of compliance with the product specification of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ throughout Cyprus at farm, feed mill, milk collection, transportation and cheese factory level. Thus, all producers throughout the island would be subject to a common control mechanism that ensures full compliance with the product specification of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’. Should it be deemed appropriate, Bureau Veritas should be authorised to liaise with the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce. Should Bureau Veritas report instances of non-compliance and should the producers concerned fail to remedy the said instances of non-compliance, they should ultimately be deprived of the right to use the name. |
|
(44) |
Due to the exceptional situation in the areas of the Republic of Cyprus where the application of the acquis is suspended, the delegation to Bureau Veritas should provide that its reports be sent to the competent authorities of the Republic of Cyprus and to the Commission. The Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce will receive information when deemed appropriate. |
|
(45) |
Intellectual property rights are governed by the principle of territoriality. As a consequence, the registration of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ as a PDO within the Union is solely subject to the situation prevailing there. The possible production or marketing in third countries of a cheese bearing that name has no relevance in that connection. Likewise, the possible existence of regulatory production standards for this cheese outside the Union is of no relevance. |
|
(46) |
It should further be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 2(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the placing on the market of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ within the Union is conditional on the compliance with other specific Union provisions of relevance, including the fulfilment of sanitary provisions applicable at Union level. |
|
(47) |
No solid evidence has been provided in the opposition procedure as regards imports of such cheese from third countries into the Union. As a consequence, there are no grounds for a transitional period under Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 to be granted to specific producers in third countries. |
|
(48) |
It is undisputed that Cyprus is by far the largest producer and exporter of this cheese worldwide, with a production of more than 19 500 tons per year, amounting to 24,4 kg per capita. These figures do not include the production in the areas of the Republic of Cyprus where the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control. |
|
(49) |
‘Halloumi’ was registered as a trade mark in 2000 with the OHIM in respect of the cheese made in Cyprus pursuant to the relevant Cyprus standard adopted in 1985, thus in accordance with the ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ specification. A single opposition to such registration was lodged before the OHIM, yet subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, the Cypriot identity of such cheese was not challenged at that time. The General Court has also considered, notably in joined Cases T-292/14 and T-293/14 (5), that ‘HALLOUMI’ and ‘ΧΑΛΛΟΥMI’ refer to a speciality cheese from Cyprus. In Case T-535/10 (6), the General Court held that the Greek term ‘Halloumi’ is to be translated in the Turkish language as ‘Hellim’, thus both referring to the same special Cypriot cheese. In respect of other trade marks registered in the Union, should they conflict with the ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ designation, the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 would apply. By contrast, no elements have been adduced by the opponents that would lead to the non-protection of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ due to the reputation or renown of a prior registered trade mark. |
|
(50) |
The United Kingdom was a Member State of the European Union when it lodged the opposition but it is no longer part of it. |
|
(51) |
According to the reasoned statement of opposition submitted by the United Kingdom its domestic production amounted to around 300 tons per year, amounting to 0,00461 kg per capita, while the United Kingdom imports roughly 6 500 tons of this cheese from Cyprus per year. |
|
(52) |
According to this reasoned statement, the registration of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ as a protected designation of origin under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 would therefore prevent the use of the name ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ for cheese products produced in the United Kingdom. |
|
(53) |
However, with the exception of Northern Ireland, this Regulation does not apply to the territory of the United Kingdom as the protection of the name would not extend thereto. As regards in particular Northern Ireland, on which territory the protection of the name will apply, in the light of the information included in the reasoned statement of opposition submitted by the United Kingdom to the Commission and of the factual and legal context concerning the use of the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’, there are no valid grounds for operators to continue to use the name ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ for cheese products produced in the United Kingdom. |
|
(54) |
Regarding the alleged generic nature of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’, it should be stated that the perception of this term outside the European Union and the possible existence of related regulatory production standards or judicial decisions adopted in third countries are not deemed relevant to the present decision. |
|
(55) |
Contrary to the claims of the opponents, ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’, has not become a type of cheese produced all over Europe whose name has become generic. The production of this cheese outside Cyprus is negligible, while the product is known and consumed in most of the Union territory. No national or Union acts have established the generic nature of the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’. No claims for the generic nature of the name have been made in the framework of the opposition procedure conducted at Union level, with the exception of the opposition from the United Kingdom. |
|
(56) |
Likewise, the consumption of ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ within the Union territory concerns in the vast majority of cases a cheese produced in Cyprus. |
|
(57) |
The Cypriot authorities have further convincingly demonstrated that Union consumers do not consider ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ as a mere type of cheese, disconnected from a specific geographical origin. Evidence from stakeholders in the food industry, export activity of Cypriot companies for over 100 years, numerous articles in the media, cheese promotion/advertising activities show beyond any doubt the intrinsic Cypriot identity of this cheese since centuries. Equally, prestigious encyclopaedias and dictionaries from various countries and in different languages do confirm such standing and exclusive correlation between this cheese and the Cyprus terroir. |
|
(58) |
Incidentally, a number of labels of ‘Halloumi’/‘Hellim’ produced outside Cyprus refer directly or indirectly to Cyprus, by suggesting that the cheese follows the Cypriot traditional recipe or tradition or is inspired by that recipe or tradition, or by using imagery or textual representations linking it to Cyprus culture. Such correlation made with Cyprus, albeit in respect of a non-Cypriot cheese, is thus suggested and sought deliberately as part of a sales strategy that capitalises on the reputation of the original product, hence creating a genuine risk of consumer confusion. |
|
(59) |
The statement of the OHIM concerning the allegedly generic nature of the name ‘Halloumi’ made in various decisions of the Board of appeal, and in particular in the Decision 20 September 2010 then annulled by the General Court (7), is merely an obiter dictum. That statement stands in contrast with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-535/10, that outlines the Cypriot identity of the cheese named ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’, and does not address the generic nature of the name within the meaning of Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Furthermore, that statement was made before the submission of the application to register the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ as a PDO. |
|
(60) |
By letter of 9 July 2014, Cyprus communicated to the Commission that a transitional period of 10 years as from the date of submission of the application to the Commission had been granted, by decision No 326/2014 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment of the Republic of Cyprus of 9 July 2014, to operators established in the geographical area that fulfil the conditions of Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
|
(61) |
In order to allow adequate time, taking into account also the additional constraints imposed by the pandemic of COVID-19, for the body in charge of the control tasks to put in place and implement its control plan allowing all operators in the geographical area willing to adhere to the rules of the scheme to be covered by the applicable verification system, the application of this Regulation should be deferred to 1 October 2021. |
|
(62) |
The name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ should therefore be entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications. |
|
(63) |
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
The name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO) is registered.
The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product from Class 1.3. Cheeses set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (8).
Article 2
The protection of the name ‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO) shall be subject to the 10 years transitional period granted by Cyprus, by decision No 326/2014 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment of the Republic of Cyprus of 9 July 2014, to operators established in the geographical area that fulfil the conditions of Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
It shall apply from 1 October 2021.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 April 2021.
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN
(1) OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 246, 28.7.2015, p. 9.
(3) Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation) (OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1).
(4) Decision in Opposition No B2152604, Decision in Opposition No B2318585, Decision in Opposition No B2190257, Decision in Opposition No B2191396, Decision in Opposition No B002124637.
(5) Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015 in joined Cases T-292/14 and T-293/14 Republic of Cyprus v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
(6) Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case T-535/10 Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).
(7) Decision of the fourth board of appeal of OHMI of 20 September 2010 (Case R 1497/2009-4), annulled by the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case T-535/10.
(8) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
DECISIONS
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/52 |
COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/592
of 7 April 2021
on the submission, on behalf of the European Union, of a proposal for the listing of chlorpyrifos in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
On 14 October 2004, the European Community approved the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (‘the Convention’) by means of Council Decision 2006/507/EC (1). |
|
(2) |
As a Party to the Convention, the Union is able to submit proposals for the amendment of the Annexes to the Convention. Annex A to the Convention lists chemicals to be eliminated. |
|
(3) |
According to available scientific information and review reports, and taking due account of the screening criteria set out in Annex D to the Convention, chlorpyrifos exhibits characteristics of a persistent organic pollutant. |
|
(4) |
Chlorpyrifos is not approved as an active substance pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and is therefore not allowed to be placed on the market or used in the Union in plant protection products. Chlorpyrifos is also not approved as an active substance pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and is therefore not allowed to be placed on the market or used in the Union in biocidal products. In addition, chlorpyrifos is not registered for any other use in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and, consequently, it is not allowed to be manufactured or placed on the market in the Union for such other use in quantities of 1 tonne or more per year per manufacturer or importer. |
|
(5) |
Although chlorpyrifos has been phased out in the Union, it appears that it is still used as a pesticide and dispersed in the environment outside the Union. Due to the potential for long-range environmental transport of chlorpyrifos, the measures taken nationally or at Union level are not sufficient to safeguard the high level of protection of the environment and human health. Wider international action is therefore necessary. |
|
(6) |
The Union should therefore submit a proposal to the Secretariat of the Convention for the listing of chlorpyrifos in Annex A to the Convention, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Union shall submit a proposal for the listing of chlorpyrifos (CAS No: 2921-88-2, EC No 220-864-4) in Annex A to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
The Commission shall, on behalf of the Union, communicate the proposal referred to in the first subparagraph to the Secretariat of the Convention with all the information required under Annex D to the Convention.
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2021.
For the Council
The President
A. P. ZACARIAS
(1) Council Decision 2006/507/EC of 14 October 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (OJ L 209, 31.7.2006, p. 1).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1).
(3) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1).
(4) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/54 |
COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/593
of 9 April 2021
on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the European Committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation and within the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine on the adoption of standards concerning harmonised river information services
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91(1), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
The Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine signed in Mannheim on 17 October 1868, as amended by the Convention amending the Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine signed in Strasbourg on 20 November 1963, entered into force on 14 April 1967 (the ‘Convention’). |
|
(2) |
Under the Convention, the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (‘CCNR’) may modify its regulatory framework related to river information services (‘RIS’) by referring to the standards adopted by the European Committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation (‘CESNI’) and making those standards mandatory in the framework of the application of the Convention. |
|
(3) |
CESNI was created on 3 June 2015 in the framework of the CCNR in order to develop technical standards for inland waterways in various fields, in particular as regards vessels, information technology and crew. |
|
(4) |
Action by the Union in the sector of inland navigation aims to ensure uniformity in the development of technical specifications applied in the Union, in particular as regards RIS. |
|
(5) |
For the purposes of efficient transport and safe navigation on the inland waterways, it is important that RIS are compatible and as harmonised as possible under different legal regimes across Europe. |
|
(6) |
CESNI, in its next meeting on 15 April 2021, is expected to adopt the European Standard – River Information Services 2021/1 (‘ES-RIS 2021/1’). |
|
(7) |
ES-RIS 2021/1 lays down uniform technical specifications and standards in order to support RIS and ensure their interoperability. The technical specifications and standards under ES-RIS 2021/1 correspond to the technical specifications and standards for which adoption is required by Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in particular in the following areas: electronic chart display and information system for inland navigation; electronic ship reporting; notices to skippers; vessel tracking and tracing systems and compatibility of the equipment necessary for the use of RIS. |
|
(8) |
Technical specifications for RIS are based on the technical principles set out in Annex II to Directive 2005/44/EC and take account of work carried out in this field by relevant international organisations. |
|
(9) |
It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within CESNI, as ES-RIS 2021/1 will be capable of decisively influencing the content of Union law, namely the binding technical specifications adopted within the framework of Directive 2005/44/EC. |
|
(10) |
The CCNR, in its plenary meeting on 2 June 2021, is expected to adopt a resolution that will amend the CCNR Regulations to include a reference to ES-RIS 2021/1. Therefore, it is also appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the CCNR. |
|
(11) |
The Union is not a member of the CCNR or of CESNI. The Union’s position should therefore be expressed by the Member States that are members of those bodies, acting jointly in the interests of the Union, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within CESNI with regard to the adoption of ES-RIS 2021/1 shall be to agree to its adoption.
2. The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the CCNR shall be to support all proposals aligning the CCNR Regulations with ES-RIS 2021/1.
Article 2
1. The position set out in Article 1(1) shall be expressed by the Member States that are members of the CESNI, acting jointly in the interests of the Union.
2. The position set out in Article 1(2) shall be expressed by the Member States that are members of the CCNR, acting jointly in the interests of the Union.
Article 3
Minor technical changes to the positions set out in Article 1 may be agreed upon without further decision of the Council.
Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
Done at Brussels, 9 April 2021.
For the Council
The President
A. P. ZACARIAS
(1) Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 152).
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/56 |
COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2021/594
of 9 April 2021
on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the European Committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation and within the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine on the adoption of standards concerning professional qualifications in inland navigation
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91(1), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
The Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine signed in Mannheim on 17 October 1868, as amended by the Convention amending the Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine signed in Strasbourg on 20 November 1963, entered into force on 14 April 1967 (the ‘Convention’). |
|
(2) |
Pursuant to Article 17 of the Convention, the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine (‘CCNR’) may adopt requirements in the field of professional qualifications. |
|
(3) |
The European Committee for drawing up standards in the field of inland navigation (‘CESNI’) was created on 3 June 2015 in the framework of the CCNR in order to develop technical standards for inland waterways in various fields, in particular as regards vessels, information technology and crew. |
|
(4) |
CESNI, in its next meeting on 15 April 2021, is expected to adopt a standard for basic safety training for deckhands laying down training requirements that Member States could follow as their national requirements (‘CESNI standard 20_04’) and a standard for standardised communication phrases in four languages for boatmen and boatmasters to be able to cope with situations involving communication problems (‘CESNI standard 20_39’). Both CESNI standard 20_04 and CESNI standard 20_39 aim to facilitate the implementation of the requirements falling within the scope of Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). |
|
(5) |
The CCNR, in its plenary meeting on 2 June 2021, is expected to adopt a resolution that will amend the Regulations for Rhine Navigation Personnel in order to include a reference to the European Standards for Qualifications in Inland Navigation (‘ES-QIN standards’), including CESNI standard 20_04 and CESNI standard 20_39. |
|
(6) |
CESNI standard 20_04 and CESNI standard 20_39 aim to contribute to maintaining the highest level of safety in inland navigation and would encourage harmonisation in the context of Directive (EU) 2017/2397. |
|
(7) |
It is appropriate to establish the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within CESNI and within the CCNR. |
|
(8) |
The Union is not a member of the CCNR or of CESNI. The Union’s position should therefore be expressed by the Member States that are members of those bodies, acting jointly in the interests of the Union, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within CESNI with regard to the adoption of CESNI standard 20_04 and CESNI standard 20_39 shall be to agree to their adoption.
2. The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf within the CCNR with regard to the adoption of a resolution amending the Regulations for Rhine Navigation Personnel in order to include a reference to the ES-QIN standards, including CESNI standard 20_04 and CESNI standard 20_39, shall be to support all proposals aligning the requirements of the Regulations for the Rhine Navigation Personnel with the ES-QIN standards.
Article 2
1. The position set out in Article 1(1) shall be expressed by the Member States that are members of the CESNI, acting jointly in the interests of the Union.
2. The position set out in Article 1(2) shall be expressed by the Member States that are members of the CCNR, acting jointly in the interests of the Union.
Article 3
Minor technical changes to the positions set out in Article 1 may be agreed upon without further decision of the Council.
Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.
Done at Brussels, 9 April 2021.
For the Council
The President
A. P. ZACARIAS
(1) Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on the recognition of professional qualifications in inland navigation and repealing Council Directives 91/672/EEC and 96/50/EC (OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 53).
|
13.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 125/58 |
COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/595
of 12 April 2021
amending Decision 2011/235/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
Whereas:
|
(1) |
On 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1). |
|
(2) |
On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/235/CFSP, the Council considers that the restrictive measures set out therein should be renewed until 13 April 2022. |
|
(3) |
One person designated in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP is deceased, and his entry should be removed from that Annex. The Council has also concluded that the entries concerning 34 persons and one entity included in the Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP should be updated. |
|
(4) |
Decision 2011/235/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Decision 2011/235/CFSP is amended as follows:
|
(1) |
in Article 6, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘2. This Decision shall apply until 13 April 2022. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’; |
|
(2) |
the Annex is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision. |
Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels, 12 April 2021.
For the Council
The President
A. P. ZACARIAS
(1) Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran (OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51).
ANNEX
The Annex to Decision 2011/235/CFSP (‘List of persons and entities referred to in Articles 1 and 2’) is amended as follows:
|
(1) |
entry 16 (concerning HADDAD Hassan (alias Hassan ZAREH DEHNAVI) in the list headed ‘Persons’ is deleted; |
|
(2) |
the entries for the following 34 persons and one entity are replaced by the following: Persons
Entities
|