25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/1

(1)

In accordance with 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 geographical indication ‘Asparago bianco di Cimadolmo’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 245/2002 (2).

(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 (3).

(3)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/3

(1)

The Netherlands received on 22 February 2012 an application, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), for the inclusion of the active substance carbon dioxide in its Annex I for use in product-type 15, avicides, as defined in Annex V to that Directive.

(2)

The Netherlands submitted an assessment report, together with its recommendations, to the Commission on 30 August 2013 in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC.

(3)

The opinion of the European Chemicals Agency was formulated on 17 June 2014 by the Biocidal Product Committee, having regard to the conclusions of the evaluating competent authority.

(4)

According to that opinion, biocidal products used for product-type 15 and containing carbon dioxide may be expected to satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 5 of Directive 98/8/EC provided that certain specifications and conditions relating to its use are satisfied.

(5)

It is therefore appropriate to approve carbon dioxide for use in biocidal products for product-type 15 subject to compliance with certain specifications and conditions.

(6)

Since the evaluations did not address nanomaterials, the approval should not cover such materials in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/5

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Lithuania's application to register the name ‘Liliputas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

By the notice of opposition of 13 September 2013 and the reasoned statement of opposition of 8 November 2013, Poland opposed to the registration under Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. The opposition was deemed admissible.

(3)

By letters dated 8 January 2014, the Commission invited the interested parties to engage in appropriate consultations to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures.

(4)

No agreement was reached between Lithuania and Poland.

(5)

Given that no agreement was reached, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(6)

In accordance with Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 the opponent alleged that the registration of ‘Liliputas’ as a Protected Geographical Indication would jeopardise the existence of a partly identical name, of trade marks and of products which have been legally on the Polish market for significantly more than five years preceding the date the application for registration of the name ‘Liliputas’ as Protected Geographical Indication was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (15 June 2013); according to the opponent, that registration would be a threat to the existence of the product named ‘Liliput’, which is a Polish cheese having characteristics similar to ‘Liliputas’ cheese and whose name is phonetically similar to the name ‘Liliputas’.

(7)

The opponent claims that the term ‘Liliput’ is generally used in Poland to refer to products characterised by their small size and it is used also for cheese. Cheese bearing the name ‘Liliput’ has been lawfully produced and marketed in Poland since 1971. In company standards, technical instructions and norms for the use of raw materials ‘Liliput’ cheese is listed among other types of cheese such as Gouda, Edam and Emmental. This term, referred to the Polish cheese, is popular among Polish consumers and it is in no way linked to the Lithuanian cheese. It is therefore to be considered as a generic term for generic cheese in Poland. As regards the product, Polish ‘Liliput’ cheese has characteristics, appearance, and dimensions similar to Lithuanian ‘Liliputas’ cheese. In the end, the opponent suggests, ‘Liliput’ and ‘Liliputas’ are similar products bearing generic names. Therefore, the registration of the name ‘Liliputas’ as Protected Geographical Indication would prevent the Polish producers from marketing their ‘Liliput’ cheese or, in any event, from using the name ‘Liliput’ for a cheese.

(8)

The opponent claims also that the product and the name to be registered do not comply with the requirements of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. As stated in the published Single Document the cheese got the name ‘Liliputas’ because of its size. Therefore, the name ‘Liliputas’ does not indicate that the product comes from a particular place but, as the Polish cheese ‘Liliput’, just refers to the small size of the cheese. In addition, the qualities of the product are not attributable to its geographical origin but they simply derive from the fact of maturing in small rounds. The impact of the local microscopic mould Penicillium pallidum Smith on the organoleptic characteristics of ‘Liliputas’ is not proven. Furthermore, the fact that the product was produced under State Standards in USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) would confirm that it could be produced anywhere in USSR and that there was no specific link with the delimited geographical area. In the end, ‘Liliputas’ should be considered a generic product.

(9)

Several Polish cheese producers have been granted protection for trademarks containing the word ‘Liliput’, such as the registered word and figurative trade mark ‘Cheesland Liliput’ and ‘Ser liliput’, and the applied word trade mark ‘Serenada Liliput’. The production of the Polish ‘Liliput’ is substantive: 2 762 tonnes produced in 2013 on an industrial scale and marketed all over Poland in 2 250 shops, 4,8 % of the production exported in the EU market. 90 % of the production of ‘Liliput’ cheese is covered by a trade mark. In the opinion of the opponent, the registration of the name ‘Liliputas’ as a Protected Geographical Indication would be a threat to the existence of such trade marks.

(10)

Despite the abovementioned allegations submitted by the opponent, it is appropriate to register the name ‘Liliputas’ as Protected Geographical Indication for the following reasons.

(11)

Although the use of the name ‘Liliputas’ must have an origin in the small size of the cheese it refers to, it is clear that in Lithuania, in half a century, that name has lost this size reference and it has in parallel developed a strong link with the area of production. At present, in Lithuania, the name ‘Liliputas’ is indisputably associated with the hand-made semi-hard fermented high quality cheese produced in Belvederis village. Lithuanian consumers do not link that name to a Polish cheese or to standard industrialised cheese production. Therefore, although deprived of a geographical part, the name Liliputas complies with the definition of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 which states that protected geographical indication is a name identifying a product originating in a specific place, region or country.

(12)

In the light of the above, ‘Liliputas’ cannot be considered a generic name. Generic names are names that, although having an historical link to the place where the product they refer to was originally produced or marketed, are now totally disconnected from such initial geographical origin. For ‘Liliputas’ it is exactly the contrary. It was originally disconnected from its geographical origin but now it is strongly linked to its area of production.

(13)

The product has qualities and reputation that are attributable to its geographical origin. Although the published single document states that the cheese got the name ‘Liliputas’ because of its size, it however clarifies that it gets its specific flavour and aroma from maturing in small rounds by means of internal microflora and the microscopic mould Penicillium pallidum Smith, which grows in cellars in the geographical area. This mould, which is specific of cellars in Belvederis village, is responsible of the lactic acid, fresh flavour and aroma that is distinctive to ‘Liliputas’ cheese. The area provides special conditions for this mould to survive. In addition, the fact that the cheese is hand-made and produced in a non-mechanical way contributes to the maintaining and the development of the mould. Furthermore, ‘Liliputas’ has a well-documented and solid reputation as being the flagship of the Lithuanian dairy production, which has been precisely described in the published single document.

(14)

The differences among ‘Liliputas’ and ‘Liliput’ are therefore quite evident. ‘Liliputas’ cannot be considered as a generic product.

(15)

As regards the allegation that, since it was covered by USSR standards, ‘Liliputas’ could be produced anywhere in USSR, it should be noted that the inclusion of products in such standards was compulsory at that time. In addition, this circumstance does not imply that the product, as described in the standard included on initiative of Lithuania, was produced elsewhere. In any event, from 1969 to 1979 it received plenty of awards, diplomas, quality mark and medals, being well identified as a Lithuanian cheese produced in Belvederis village.

(16)

The terms ‘Liliput’ is phonetically similar to the term ‘Liliputas’ which is to be registered. Both names originate from the small size of the cheese. Although the ‘Liliputas’ cheese is a product with well distinct characteristics, qualities and reputation, the ‘Liliput’ cheese has aspects that make it similar to the ‘Liliputas’ cheese. As the names are close and given the visual similarities between the products, the application of the protection envisaged by Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 could have the result that ‘Liliputas’, if registered, would prevent Polish cheese producers from using the term ‘Liliput’.

(17)

The evidence shows that the use of the term ‘Liliput’ was not meant to exploit the reputation of ‘Liliputas’ name. The consumers have not been or couldn't have been misled as to the true origin of the products. In fact, the two products have two distinct markets in which they are well known and correctly identified. For these reasons, and as it was shown that ‘Liliput’ has been in legal use consistently and fairly for at least 25 years before the application for registration of ‘Liliputas’ was submitted to the Commission, in the interests of fairness and traditional usage, the maximum transitional period foreseen by Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 should be granted.

(18)

That conclusion does not have as a necessary consequence that the use of the term ‘Liliput’ becomes unlawful. In line with Article 41(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, if it can be established that, taking into account of all relevant factors and in particular the existing situation in the areas of consumption and the relevant national or Union legal acts, ‘Liliput’ has become a generic term, the use of this name would not be affected by the registration of the name ‘Liliputas’.

(19)

Concerning trade marks containing the term ‘Liliput’ that were applied for, registered or established by use in good faith within the territory of the Union prior to the application for registration of ‘Liliputas’ as Protected Geographical Indication, in accordance with Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the said trade marks can continue to be used and renewed for that product, provided the general requirements under trade mark legislation are otherwise met.

(20)

In the light of the above, the name ‘Liliputas’ should be entered in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.

(21)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee,

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/8

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/11

(1)

The supplier Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO), represented in the Union by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive Europe BV, (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of the MELCO GXi efficient alternator as an innovative technology on 24 June 2014. The completeness of the application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2). The Commission identified certain relevant information as missing in the original application and requested the Applicant to complete it. The Commission received the complete information on 10 July 2014 and started assessing the application on the day following that date.

(2)

The application, which has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the ‘Technical Guidelines’) (3), has been found to be complete.

(3)

The application refers to the MELCO GXi efficient alternator, for the output classes of from 130 A up to 250 A. The alternator has high efficiency as determined in accordance with the VDA approach described in point 5.1.2 of Annex I to the Technical Guidelines. That approach makes reference to the testing methodology specified in the International standard ISO 8854:2012 (4). The Applicant's alternator has an increased efficiency compared to the baseline alternator by reducing the following three losses: rectification loss by new low-energy loss diode; stator iron loss by the use of thin and high-grade electromagnetic steel stator core, and stator copper loss by the use of ultra-high fill-factor stator and applied axial cooling structure.

(4)

The Commission finds that the information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met.

(5)

The Applicant has demonstrated that a high efficiency alternator of the kind described in that application did not exceed 3 % of the new passenger cars registered in the reference year 2009.

(6)

In order to determine the CO2 savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider an alternator with 67 % efficiency as an appropriate baseline technology in the case the innovative technology is fitted on a new vehicle type. Where the MELCO GXi efficient alternator is fitted to an existing vehicle type, the baseline technology should be the alternator of the most recent version of that type placed on the market.

(7)

The Applicant has provided a methodology for testing the CO2 reductions which includes formulae that are consistent with the formulae described in the Technical Guidelines for the simplified approach with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission considers that the testing methodology will provide testing results that are verifiable, repeatable and comparable and that it is capable of demonstrating in a realistic manner the CO2 emissions benefits of the innovative technology with strong statistical significance in accordance with Article 6 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(8)

The Applicant has provided a methodology for testing the CO2 reductions which includes formulae which are based on the Technical Guidelines with regard to efficient alternators. The Commission notes that the Applicant's testing methodology and formulae to calculate the CO2 savings are in all respects identical to the methodology specified in the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU (5). As a consequence, the Commission considers that the methodology specified in Implementing Decision 2013/341/EU should be used to determine the reduction in CO2 emissions due to the use of the MELCO GXi efficient alternator.

(9)

Against that background the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km.

(10)

The Commission notes that the savings of the innovative technology may be partially demonstrated on the standard test cycle, and the final total savings to be certified should therefore be determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011.

(11)

The Commission finds that the verification report has been prepared by the UTAC (Groupe UTAC CERAM) and that the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(12)

Against that background, the Commission finds that no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question.

(13)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the individual code to be used for the innovative technology approved through this Decision should be specified.

(14)

Any manufacturer wishing to benefit from a reduction of its average specific CO2 emissions for the purpose of meeting its specific emissions target by means of the CO2 savings from the use of the innovative technology approved by this Decision should, in accordance with Article 11(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011, refer to this Decision in its application for an EC type-approval certificate for the vehicles concerned,

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/14

(1)

Cooperation between Member States on the interoperability and security of electronic identification schemes is essential to foster a high level of trust and security appropriate to the degree of risk in such schemes.

(2)

Article 7(g) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 requires the notifying Member State to provide to other Member States a description of that scheme 6 months in advance, in order that Member States can cooperate in the way described in Article 12(5) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014.

(3)

Cooperation between Member States requires simplified procedures. Interoperability and security of electronic identification schemes cannot be created by procedures conducted in different languages. The use of the English language during cooperation should facilitate reaching interoperability and security of electronic identification schemes, however, translation of already existing documentation should not cause unreasonable burden.

(4)

Various elements of the electronic identification schemes are managed by different authorities or bodies in the Member States. In order to allow effective cooperation and simplify administrative procedures, it is appropriate to ensure that each Member State has a single point through which its relevant authorities and bodies can be reached.

(5)

Exchange of information, experience and good practice between Member States facilitates the development of electronic identification schemes and serves as a tool to reach technical interoperability. The need for such cooperation is specifically justified when it concerns adjustments of already notified electronic identification schemes, changes to electronic identification schemes on which information has been provided to Member States before notification, and when important developments or incidents occur that can affect interoperability or security of electronic identification schemes. Member States should also have the means to request such kind of information concerning interoperability and security of electronic identification schemes from other Member States.

(6)

Peer review of electronic identification schemes should be viewed as a mutual learning process that helps to build trust between Member States, and ensures interoperability and security of notified electronic identification schemes. This requires notifying Member States to provide sufficient information about their electronic identification schemes. The need for Member States to keep certain information confidential, when this is critical for security, must however also be taken into account.

(7)

In order to ensure that the peer review process is cost effective and produces clear and conclusive results, and to avoid placing an unnecessary burden on Member States, Member States should collectively conduct a single peer review.

(8)

Member States should take into account independent third party assessments, if available, when cooperating on matters relating to electronic identification schemes, including when conducting peer reviews.

(9)

In order to facilitate procedural arrangements to achieve objectives in Article 12(5) and (6) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, the Cooperation Network should be created. This is to ensure the existence of a forum which can include all the Member States and engage them in a formalised manner to cooperate vis-à-vis the practicalities of the maintenance of the interoperability framework.

(10)

The Cooperation Network should examine draft notification forms provided by Member States under Article 7(g) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and issue opinions providing indications as to the compliance of the schemes described therein with the requirements of Article 7 and Articles 8(1)-(2) and 12(1) of that Regulation and the implementing act referred to in Article 8(3) of that Regulation. Article 9(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 requires notifying Member States to describe how the notified electronic identification scheme meets the requirements of interoperability pursuant to Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014. In particular, opinions of the Cooperation Network should be taken into consideration by Member States when preparing to discharge of their obligation under Article 9(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 to describe to the Commission how the notified electronic identification scheme meets the requirements of interoperability pursuant to Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014.

(11)

All parties involved in notification should take note of the opinion of the Cooperation Network as guidance to the full cooperation, notification and interoperability processes.

(12)

In order to ensure the effectiveness of the peer review process conducted under this Decision, it is appropriate for the Cooperation Network to provide guidance to the Member States.

(13)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014,

(a)

the exchange of information, experience and good practice relating to electronic identification schemes and examination of the relevant developments in the electronic identification sector as set out in Chapter II;

(b)

peer review of electronic identification schemes as set out in Chapter III; and

(c)

cooperation through the Cooperation Network as set out in Chapter IV.

(a)

developments or adjustments to its already notified electronic identification scheme, where they do not require notification pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014;

(b)

changes, developments or adjustments to the description of its electronic identification scheme provided pursuant to Article 7(g) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, where they occurred before the notification.

(a)

it does not possess such information and to obtain it would cause an unreasonable administrative burden;

(b)

such information concerns matters of public security or national security;

(c)

such information concerns matters of business, professional or company secrets.

(a)

it does not possess such information and to obtain it would cause an unreasonable administrative burden;

(b)

such information concerns matters of public security or national security;

(c)

such information concerns matters of business, professional or company secrets.

(a)

A Member State requests its electronic identification scheme to be peer reviewed.

(b)

A Member State or Member States express the wish to peer review the electronic identification scheme of another Member State. In their request, they shall indicate the reasons for wishing to conduct the peer review and shall explain how the peer review would contribute to the interoperability or security of Member States' electronic identification schemes.

(a)

the electronic identification scheme to be peer reviewed;

(b)

the peer Member State(s);

(c)

the timeline for the expected outcome to be presented to the Cooperation Network; and

(d)

the arrangements on how to conduct the peer review pursuant to Article 9(2).

(a)

the scope and the arrangements of the peer review on the bases of the scope of Article 7(g) or Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 and interest expressed by the peer Member States in the initiation phase;

(b)

timing of the peer review activities by determining an end deadline which cannot exceed 3 months after the peer Member States provided the names and contact details of their representatives pursuant to paragraph 1;

(c)

other organisational arrangements relating to the peer reviewing process.

The Member State whose electronic identification scheme is being peer reviewed shall inform the Cooperation Network of the agreement.

(a)

the assessment of relevant documentation;

(b)

examination of processes;

(c)

technical seminars; and

(d)

consideration of independent third party assessment.

(a)

it does not possess such information and to obtain it would cause an unreasonable administrative burden;

(b)

such information concerns matters of public security or national security;

(c)

such information concerns matters of business, professional or company secrets.

(a)

facilitate the cooperation between Member States on the establishment and functioning of the interoperability framework pursuant to Article 12(5)-(6) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, through the exchange of information;

(b)

establish methods for the efficient exchange of information relating to all issues concerning electronic identification;

(c)

examine the relevant developments in the electronic identification sector and discuss and develop good practices on interoperability and security for electronic identification schemes;

(d)

adopt opinions on developments relating to the interoperability framework referred to in Article 12(2)-(4) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014;

(e)

adopt opinions on developments concerning the minimum technical specifications, standards and procedures regarding assurance levels set out in the implementing act adopted pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, and the guidance which accompanies that implementing act;

(f)

adopt guidance on the scope of peer review and its arrangements;

(g)

examine the outcome of the peer reviews pursuant to Article 11;

(h)

examine the filled draft notification form;

(i)

adopt opinions on how an electronic identification scheme to be notified, the description of which was provided pursuant to Article 7(g) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014, meets the requirements of Article 7 and Articles 8(1)-(2) and 12(1) of that Regulation and the implementing act referred to in Article 8(3) of that Regulation.

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/21

(1)

Decision ECB/2010/23 (1) establishes a mechanism for the pooling and allocation of monetary income arising from monetary policy operations.

(2)

In the light of Decision ECB/2014/40 (2) and Decision ECB/2014/45 (3), the earmarkable assets need to be adjusted to take account of the amount of realised gains and losses resulting from any disposals of securities held for monetary policy purposes, for the period from the disposal until the following quarter-end.

(3)

In view of the fact that interest accruing on monetary policy operations the maturity of which is one year or longer is pooled before its collection at the end of the operation, an adjustment should be made to the calculation of the liability base and earmarkable assets pursuant to Annexes I and II to Decision ECB/2010/23.

(4)

Decision ECB/2010/23 should be amended accordingly,

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/24

(1)

Decision ECB/2010/24 (1) lays down how the European Central Bank (ECB) distributes to the NCBs: (a) its income on euro banknotes in circulation accrued each financial year; and (b) its income arising from securities purchased under the securities markets programme (SMP) earned in each financial year.

(2)

Decision ECB/2010/24 needs to be amended to take account of the interim distribution of the ECB's income arising from covered bonds and asset-backed securities purchases undertaken in accordance with Decision ECB/2014/40 (2) and Decision ECB/2014/45 (3). It should therefore be recast in the interests of clarity.

(3)

Decision ECB/2010/29 (4) establishes the allocation of euro banknotes in circulation to the NCBs in proportion to their paid-up shares in the ECB's capital. Article 4 of Decision ECB/2010/29 and the Annex to that Decision allocate to the ECB 8 % of the total value of euro banknotes in circulation. The ECB holds intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key, for a value equivalent to the value of euro banknotes that it issues.

(4)

Under Article 2(2) of Decision ECB/2010/23 (5), the intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation are remunerated at the reference rate. Under Article 2(3) of Decision ECB/2010/23, this remuneration is settled by TARGET2 payments.

(5)

Recital 7 of Decision ECB/2010/23 states that the income accruing to the ECB on the remuneration of its intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs related to its share of euro banknotes in circulation should in principle be distributed to the NCBs, in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key in the same financial year it accrues, in accordance with decisions of the Governing Council.

(6)

In the same manner, the ECB's income arising from securities purchased under the SMP, the third covered bond purchase programme (hereinafter 'CBPP3') and the asset-backed securities purchase programme (ABSPP) should in principle be distributed to the NCBs in proportion to their shares in the subscribed capital key in the same financial year it accrues.

(7)

In distributing the ECB's income on euro banknotes in circulation and the ECB's income arising from securities purchased under the SMP, the CBPP3 and the ABSPP, the ECB should take into account an estimate of its financial result for the year that makes due allowance for the need to allocate funds to a provision for foreign exchange rate, interest rate, credit and gold price risks, and for the availability of provisions that may be released to offset anticipated expenses.

(8)

In determining the amount of the ECB's net profit to be transferred to the general reserve fund pursuant to Article 33.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the 'Statute of the ESCB'), the Governing Council should consider that any part of that profit which corresponds to income on euro banknotes in circulation and income arising from securities purchased under the SMP, the CBPP3 and the ABSPP should be distributed to the NCBs in full,

(a)

‘NCB’ means the national central bank of a Member State whose currency is the euro;

(b)

‘intra-Eurosystem balances on euro banknotes in circulation’ means the claims and liabilities arising between an NCB and the ECB and between an NCB and the other NCBs as a result of the application of Article 4 of Decision ECB/2010/29;

(c)

‘ECB's income on euro banknotes in circulation’ means the income accruing to the ECB on the remuneration of its intra-Eurosystem claims on NCBs related to its share of euro banknotes in circulation as a result of the application of Article 2 of Decision ECB/2010/23;

(d)

‘ECB's income arising from securities’ means the net income arising from purchases by the ECB of (i) securities under the SMP in accordance with Decision ECB/2010/5 (6), (ii) covered bonds under the CBPP3 in accordance with Decision ECB/2014/40, and (iii) asset-backed securities under the ABSPP in accordance with Decision ECB/2014/45.

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/27

(1)

Pursuant to Section 1.6 of Annex I to Guideline ECB/2011/14, the Governing Council may, at any time, change the instruments, conditions, criteria and procedures for the execution of Eurosystem monetary policy operations.

(2)

On 22 January 2015, in order to support the effectiveness of the targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs), the Governing Council decided to eliminate the 10 basis points spread over the rate for main refinancing operations (MROs) for the TLTROs to be conducted between March 2015 and June 2016. The elimination of the spread reflects the reduction in term premia of market-based funding instruments for institutions since the announcement of TLTROs on 5 June 2014. The decision does not affect the interest rate which is applied to the first TLTROs conducted in September and December 2014. This rate therefore remains unchanged, i.e. it is fixed over the life of each operation at the rate for MROs prevailing at the time of the tender announcement in respect of the relevant TLTRO, plus a fixed spread of 10 basis points.

(3)

In addition, certain minor corrections are required to Decision ECB/2014/34 (2).

(4)

Therefore, Decision ECB/2014/34 should be amended accordingly,

1.

Article 5 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 5

Interest

With respect to the TLTROs conducted in September 2014 and December 2014, the interest rate applicable shall be fixed over the life of each operation at the rate for main refinancing operations prevailing at the time of the tender announcement in respect of the relevant TLTRO, plus a fixed spread of 10 basis points. With respect to the TLTROs conducted from March 2015 to June 2016, the interest rate applicable shall be fixed over the life of each operation at the rate for main refinancing operations prevailing at the time of the tender announcement in respect of the relevant TLTRO.

Interest shall be payable in arrears upon maturity of the operation, or upon early repayment as provided in Articles 6 and 7, as applicable.’

2.

in Annex I, in paragraph 1 (Calculation of borrowing limits), the second table is replaced by the following:

3.

in Annex I, in paragraph 2 (Calculation of mandatory early repayments), the formula for ‘The mandatory early repayment in September 2016 of a participant’ is replaced by the following:

‘, if’

4.

in Annex I, the third footnote is replaced by the following:

‘For the TLTRO to be conducted in March 2015 (k = 3), the constraint is C 3 ≤ max{0, AA 3}.’

5.

in Annex II, the fourth footnote is replaced by the following:

‘The sector classification of holding corporations of non-financial corporations in Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 (ECB/2008/32) has been amended in Regulation (EU) No 1071/2013 (ECB/2013/33) to reflect changes in international statistical standards. Under Regulation (EU) No 1071/2013 (ECB/2013/33), holding corporations of non-financial corporations are reclassified as financial corporations. TLTRO reporting must in principle be in line with the BSI framework: with effect from December 2014 data should not cover holding corporations and adjustments should be transmitted accordingly.’

6.

in Annex II, the thirteenth footnote is replaced by the following:

‘The effects of the reclassification of holding corporations of non-financial corporations as financial corporations, which took place in December 2014, should be recorded under item 3.2C.’

25.2.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/29

(1)

Pursuant to Article 18.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter the ‘NCBs’) may conduct credit operations with credit institutions and other market participants, with lending being based on adequate collateral. The standard criteria determining the eligibility of collateral for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations are laid down in Annex I to Guideline ECB/2011/14.

(2)

Pursuant to Section 1.6 of Annex I to Guideline ECB/2011/14, the Governing Council may, at any time, change the instruments, conditions, criteria and procedures for the execution of Eurosystem monetary policy operations. Pursuant to Section 6.3.1 of Annex I to Guideline ECB/2011/14, the Eurosystem reserves the right to determine whether an issue, issuer, debtor or guarantor fulfils its requirements for high credit standards on the basis of any information it may consider relevant. Further, the Eurosystem's minimum requirements for credit quality thresholds are specified in the Eurosystem credit assessment framework rules for marketable assets, as laid down in Section 6.3.2 of Annex I to Guideline ECB/2011/14.

(3)

The suspension of the Eurosystem's minimum requirements for credit quality thresholds applicable to marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic, initially decided by the Governing Council on 6 May 2010, was an exceptional and temporary measure which was based on the positive assessment by the Governing Council of compliance with a European Union/International Monetary Fund programme. At the time, the Governing Council took into consideration the fact that the Hellenic Republic had approved a programme which the Governing Council considered to be appropriate so that, from a credit risk management perspective, the marketable debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic retained a quality standard sufficient for their continued eligibility as collateral for Eurosystem monetary policy operations, irrespective of any external credit assessment. Moreover, the Governing Council took into consideration the strong commitment of the Greek Government to fully implement that programme (3).

(4)

Under Article 8 of Guideline ECB/2014/31, the Eurosystem's credit quality thresholds do not apply to marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the central governments of euro area Member States under a European Union/International Monetary Fund programme, unless the Governing Council decides that the respective Member State no longer complies with the conditionality of its financial support and/or macroeconomic programme. Under Article 1(3) of the same Guideline, the Hellenic Republic is, for the purposes of Article 6(1) and Article 8 of that Guideline, considered a euro area Member State compliant with a European Union/International Monetary Fund programme.

(5)

On the basis of the information available, the Governing Council has made an assessment, according to which it is not currently possible to assume a successful conclusion of the review of the European Union/International Monetary Fund programme for the Hellenic Republic. Consequently, the Hellenic Republic is no longer deemed to be in compliance with the conditionality of the programme and, as a result, the conditions for the temporary suspension of the Eurosystem's credit quality thresholds in respect of such instruments, as set out in Article 8(2) of Guideline ECB/2014/31, are no longer fulfilled. As a consequence, the Governing Council has decided that the Eurosystem's credit quality thresholds shall apply in respect of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic,