13.4.2023

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 129/3

Informácie Európskej komisie uverejnené v súlade s článkom 22 ods. 2 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1005/2008 týkajúce sa oznámení vlajkových štátov (zoznam štátov a ich príslušných orgánov) podľa článku 20 ods. 1, 2 a 3 a prílohy III k nariadeniu (ES) č. 1005/2008

(2023/C 129/03)

V súlade s článkom 20 ods. 1, 2 a 3 a prílohou III k nariadeniu Rady (ES) č. 1005/2008 (1) oznámili ďalej uvedené tretie krajiny Európskej komisii verejné orgány, ktoré majú v súvislosti so systémom osvedčovania úlovkov stanoveným článkom 12 uvedeného nariadenia oprávnenie:

a)	registrovať rybárske plavidlá pod ich vlajkou;

b)	udeľovať, pozastavovať a odoberať rybárske licencie ich rybárskym plavidlám;

c)	potvrdzovať vierohodnosť informácií uvedených na osvedčeniach o úlovku uvedených v článku 12 a potvrdzovať tieto osvedčenia;

d)	vykonávať, kontrolovať a vynucovať zákony, iné právne predpisy a opatrenia v oblasti ochrany a riadenia, ktoré musia dodržiavať ich rybárske plavidlá;

e)	vykonávať overovania takýchto osvedčení o úlovku na účely pomoci príslušným orgánom členských štátov prostredníctvom administratívnej spolupráce uvedenej v článku 20 ods. 4;

f)	zasielať vzorové formuláre osvedčení o úlovku v súlade so vzorom v prílohe II a

aktualizovať takéto oznámenia.

Tretia krajina

Príslušné orgány

ALBÁNSKO

—	Albanian General Harbour Masters (Ministry Transport and Infrastructure)

b):

—	Commission for Examination of Applications for Fishing Permittion (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration), through National Licensing Center (Ministry of Economical Development, Tourism, Trade and Interpreneurship)

c), d), e):

—	Sector of Fishery Monitoring and Control (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration)

f) and g):

—	The Directorate of Agriculture Production and Trade Policies (Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration)

ALŽÍRSKO

a) to d):

—

Directions de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques des Wilayas de:

—

El Tarf,

—

Annaba,

—

Skikda,

—

Jijel,

—

Bejaian,

—	Tizi Ouzou,

—	Boumerdes,

—

Alger,

—

Tipaza,

—

Chlef,

—	Mostaganem,

—

Oran,

—	Ain Temouchent,

—

Tlemcen.

e) to g):

—	Ministère de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques

ANGOLA

a):

—	Conservatória do registo de propriedade (subordinada ao Ministério da Justiça) / Instituto Marítimo Portuário de Angola – IMPA (subordinada ao Ministério dos Transportes)

b):

—	Ministra das Pescas e do Mar

c):

—	Direcção Nacional de Pescas (DNP)

d):

—	Serviço Nacional de Fiscalização Pesqueira e da Aquicultura (SNFPA)

e), f), g):

—	Direcção Nacional de Pescas (Ministério das Pescas e do Mar)

ANTIGUA A BARBUDA

a) to g):

—	Chief Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Housing and Environment.

ARGENTÍNA

a) to (g):

—	Dirección Nacional de Coordinación y Fiscalización Pesquera (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca

AUSTRÁLIA

a) to (e):

—

Australian Fisheries Management Authority;

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia;

Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales;

Department

of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland;

Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Tasmania;

Victoria Fishing Authority;

Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia

f) to g):

—	The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

BAHAMY

a) and b):

—	Port Department, within the Ministry of The Environment / Department of Marine Resources

c) to g) :

—	Department of Marine Resources

BANGLADÉŠ

a):

—	Mercantile Marine Department

b) to f):

—	Marine Fisheries Office

g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock

BELIZE

a):

—	The International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize (INMARBE)

c) to g):

—	Belize High Seas Fisheries Unit, Ministry of Finance, Government of Belize

BENIN

a):

—	Direction de la Marine Marchande / Ministère en charge de l'Economie Maritime; Service Contrôle et Suivi des Produits et des Filières Halieutiques de la Direction des Pêches

b):

—	Direction des Pêches / Ministère en charge de la Pêche; Service Contrôle et Suivi des Produits et des Filières Halieutiques de la Direction des Pêches

c), e), f), g):

—	Service Contrôle et Suivi des Produits et des Filières Halieutiques de la Direction des Pêches

d):

—	Direction des Pêches / Ministère en charge de la Pêche

BRAZÍLIA

a) to g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply

KAMERUN (2)

a):

—	Ministère des Transports

b) to g):

—	Ministère de l'Elevage, des Pêches et Industries Animales

KANADA

a) to g):

—	Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Harbour Management

KAPVERDY

a):

—	Institut Maritime et Portuaire (IMP) / Instituto Marítimo e Portuário (IMP)

b):

—	Direction Générale des Ressources Marines (DGRM) / Direção Geral dos Recursos Marinhos (DGRM)

c),d),e),f),g):

—	Unité d’inspection et garantie de qualité (UIGQ) / Unidade de Inspecção e Garantia de Qualidade (UIGQ)

ČILE

a):

Dirección General del Territorio Marítimo y Marina Mercante, de la Armada de Chile

b):

—	Subsecretaría de Pesca

c) to f):

—	Servicio Nacional de Pesca

g):

—	Subsecretaria de Pesca

ČÍNA

a) to g):

—	Bureau of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA), P.R. China

KOLUMBIA

a):

—	Dirección General Marítima

b) to f):

—	Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca (AUNAP)

g):

—	Director de Pesca y Acuicultura

KOSTARIKA

a):

—	Oficina de Bienes Muebles, Dirección Nacional de Registro Público,Ministerio de Justicia y Gracia

b):

—	Presidente Ejecutivo, Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

c):

—	Dirección General Técnica, Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

d):

—	Unidad de Control Pesquero / Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura / Director General del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Gobernación y Policía

e):

—	Departamento de Cooperación Internacional / Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

f):

—	Dirección General Técnica o instancia competente del Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura

g):

—	Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería

KUBA

a):

—	Registro Marítimo Nacional

b),c),e):

—	Oficina Nacional de Inspección Pesquera (ONIP)

d):

—	Dirección de Ciencias y Regulaciones Pesqueras and Oficina Nacional de Inspección Pesquera

f):

—	Dirección de Planificación del Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera

g):

—	Dirección de Relaciones Internacionales del Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera

CURAÇAO

a):

—	The Ministry of Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning

b) and (f):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development

c):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development in consultation with

the Ministry of Public Health, Environment and Nature

d):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of

Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning The Attorney General of Curaçao is in charge of the law enforcement

e):

—	The Ministry of Economic Development in collaboration with the Ministry of Traffic, Transport and Urban Planning

g):

—	The Government of Curaçao

EKVÁDOR

a),c),e):

—	Director de Pesca Industrial (Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca)

b),f),g):

—	Subsecretario de Recursos Pesqueros (Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca)

d):

—	Director de Control Pesquero (Ministerio de Acuacultura y Pesca)

EGYPT

a):

—

Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation:

I)	General Organization For Veterinary Services (GOVs)

II)	General Authority For Fish Resources Development

b) and d):

—	General Authority for Fish Resources Development (cooperation with GOVs in case of fishing vessels of exporting establishments)

c):

—	Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation:General Organization for Veterinary Services (both Central and Local VET. Quarantine Department)

e):

—	General Authority for Fish Resources Development (cooperation with local inspectors Veterinary Quarantine for fishing vessels of exporting establishments)

f):

—	General Organization for Veterinary Services

g):

I)	Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation

II)	General Organization For Veterinary Services

SALVÁDOR

a):

—	Autoridad Marítima Portuária

b) to g):

—	Centro de Desarrollo de la Pesca y la Acuicultura (CENDEPESCA)

ERITREA

a):

—	Ministry of Fisheries

b):

—	Fisheries Resource Regulatory Department

c):

—	Fish Quality Inspection Division

d):

—	Monitoring Controlling and Surveillance, Ministry of Fisheries

e):

—	Liaison Division, Ministry of Fisheries

f):

—	Ministry of Fisheries Laboratory

g):

—	Government of the State of Eritrea

FALKLANDSKÉ OSTROVY

a):

—	Registar of Shipping, Customs and Immigration Department, Falkland Islands Government

b) to g):

—	Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government

FAERSKÉ OSTROVY

a):

—	FAS Faroe Islands National & International Ship Register

b):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and the Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

c):

—	The Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

d):

—	Ministry of Fisheries, the Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection and the Police and the Public Prosecution Authority

e):

—	The Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

f) and g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries

FIDŽI

a):

—	Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (MSAF)

b):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Forests; Fisheries Department

c) to g):

—	Fisheries Department

FRANCÚZSKA POLYNÉZIA

a):

—	Direction Polynésienne des Affaires Maritimes (DPAM)

b),c),e),f):

—	Direction des ressources marines (DRM)

d):

—	Direction des ressources marines (DRM) / Haut-Commissariat de la République française / Service des Affaires Maritimes de Polynésie française (SAM PF)

g):

—	Direction générale des affaires maritimes, de la pêche et de l’Aquaculture (DGAMPA)

GABON

a) and b):

—	Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Elevage, de la Pêche et du Développement Rural

c) to g):

—	Directeur Général des Pêches et de l'Aquaculture

GAMBIA

a):

—	The Gambia Maritime Administration

b):

—	Director of Fisheries

c) to g):

—	Fisheries Department (Director of Fisheries)

GHANA

a) to g):

—	Fisheries Commission

GRÓNSKO

a):

—	The Danish Maritime Authority

b) to g):

—	The Greenland Fisheries Licence Control Authority

GRENADA

a) to g):

—	Fisheries Division (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)

GUATEMALA

a) to g):

—	Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación (MAGA) through Dirección de Normatividad de la Pesca y Acuicultura.

GUINEA

a):

—	Direction Générale de l’Agence de la Navigation Maritime (ANAM)

b):

—	Direction Nationale des Pêches Maritimes

c):

—	Le Certificateur des certificats de capture

d) to f):

—	Direction Générale du Centre National de Surveillance de Police des Pêcheries

g):

—	Ministère des Pêches, de l’Aquaculture et le l’Economie Maritime

GUYANA

a) to g):

—	Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Guyana, South America

ISLAND

a) and b):

—	Directorate of Fisheries

c),e),f),g):

—	Directorate of Fisheries / The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority

d):

—	Directorate of Fisheries / The Icelandic Coast Guards

INDIA

a) and b):

—	Marine Products Exports Development Authority (MPEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India

Registrars under the Merchant Shipping Act (Director General of Shipping), Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India

Deparment of Fisheries of State (Provincial) Governments of West Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharastra, and Tamil Nadu

c):

—

Marine Products Exports Development Authority (MPEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India

Authorized officers as notified by State Governments and Union Territories:

—	Kochi (Regional Division)

—	Chennai (Regional Division)

—	Kolkata (Regional Division)

—	Mumbai (Regional Division)

—	Visakhapatnam (Regional Division)

—	Veraval (Regional Division)

—	Mangalore (Sub Regional Division)

—	Kollam (Sub Regional Division)

—	Goa (Sub Regional Division)

—	Tuticorin (Sub Regional Division)

—	Bhubaneswar (Regional Division)

—	Bhimavaram (Sub Regional Division)

—	Porbandar (Sub Regional Division)

—	Ratnagiri (Sub Regional Division)

—	Kavaratti (Sub Regional Division)

—	Nellore (Satellite Centre)

d):

—	Director General of Shipping Marine Products Exports Development Authority, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India Coast Guard Department of Fisheries of the State Governments

e):

—	Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India and its 21 field offices Authorized officers of notified State Governments and Union Territories

f):

—	Joint Secretary, (EP-MP) Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry

g):

—	Joint Secretary, (EP-MP) Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Joint Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture

INDONÉZIA

a) and b):

—	Head of Marine and Fisheries Services Province

Director General Maritime of Capture Fisheries

c):

—	Head of Fishing Port, Directorate General of Capture Fisheries Fisheries Inspector, Directorate General of Marine Fisheries Resources Surveillance and Control

d):

—	Director General of Marine and Fisheries Resources Surveillance

e):

—	Director General of Capture Fisheries

f) and g):

—	Director General of Fisheries Product Processing and Marketing

POBREŽIE SLONOVINY

a):

—	Directeur Général des Affaires Maritimes et Portuaires (DGAMP, Secrétariat d’État auprès du Ministre des Transports chargé des Affaires Maritimes et Portuaires)

b):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques

c) and e):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques

—	Directeur des Pêches, Direction des pêches

And

—	Chef du Service d’Inspection et de Contrôle en Frontière (Service d’Inspection et de Contrôle Sanitaires Vétérinaires en Frontières, SICOSAV)

d):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques Directeur des Pêches, Direction des pêches

f) and g):

—	Ministre des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques

JAMAJKA

a):

—	Maritime Authority of Jamaica (MAJ)

b) to g):

—	Fisheries Division

JAPONSKO

a):

—	Fisheries Management Division, Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Hokkaido Government

—	Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Hachinohe Fisheries Office, Sanpachi District Administration Office, Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Mutsu Fisheries Office, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Seihoku District Administration Office, Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Ajigasawa Fisheries Office, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Seihoku District Administration Office, Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Iwate Prefectural Department

—	Fisheries Department, Kuji Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Miyako Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Kamaishi Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Ofunato Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Department, Miyagi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Ports Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Akita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Industrial and Economic Affairs Department, Shonai Area General Branch Administration Office, Yamagata Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fukushima Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Office, Fukushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Ibaraki Prefectural Government

—	Marine Industries Promotion Division, Chiba Prefectural Government

—	Fishery section, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Division, Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs, Tokyo Metropolitan Government

—	Fisheries Division, Environment and Agriculture Department, Kanagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Niigata Prefectural Government

—	Promotion Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Promotion Department, Sado Regional Promotion Bureau, Niigata Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Port Division, Toyama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Ishikawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Reinan Regional Promotion Bureau, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Office of Fishery Management, Division of Fishery, Department of Industry, Shizuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Aichi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Resource Office, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce and Industry, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kyoto Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Office, Kyoto Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Osaka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture and Environmental Department, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Kobe Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Kobe District Administration Office, Hyogo prefectural Government

—	Kakogawa Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Higashi-Harima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Himeji Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Naka-Harima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Koto Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Nishi-Harima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Tajima Fisheries Office, Tajima District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Sumoto Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Office, Awaji District Administration Office, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Kaisou Promotions Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Arida Promotions Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Hidaka Promotions Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Nishimuro Promotion Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Higashimuro Promotion Bureau, Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fishery Development Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Tottori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Office, Oki Branch Office, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Matsue Fisheries Office, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Hamada Fisheries office, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Okayama Prefectural Government

—	Hiroshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Yamaguchi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Tokushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agricultural Administration and Fisheries Department, Kagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Ehime prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Management Division, Kochi Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Administration Division, Fishery Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Saga Prefectural Government

—	Resource Management Division, Fisheries Department, Nagasaki Prefectural Government

—	Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Tamana Regional Promotion Bureau, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Yatsushiro Regional Promotion Bureau, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Amakusa Regional Promotion Bureau, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Oita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Miyazaki Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Kagoshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Okinawa Prefectural Government

—	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Management Division, Miyako Regional Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries promotions Center, Okinawa Prefectural Government

—	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Management Division, Yaeyama Regional Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Promotions Center, Okinawa Prefectural Government

b):

Same as point (a) and:

—	Fishery Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Iwate Regional Marine Fisheries Management Commission

—	Fisheries Division, Tsu Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Commerce, Industry and Environment Office, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Ise Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Commerce, Industry and Environment Office, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Owase Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Commerce, Industry and Environment Office, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kyoto Prefectural Government

c):

—	Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

d):

—	Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

—	Fisheries Management Division, Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Hokkaido Government

—	Aomori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Iwate Prefectural Department

—	Iwate Regional Marine Fisheries Management Commission

—	Fisheries Department, Kuji Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Miyako Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Kamaishi Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Department, Ofunato Regional Promotion Bureau, Iwate Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Industry Promotion Division, Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries Department, Miyagi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Ports Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Akita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Industrial and Economic Affairs Department, Shonai Area General Branch Administration Office, Yamagata Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fukushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Ibaraki Prefectural Government

—	Marine Industries Promotion Division, Chiba Prefectural Government

—	Fishery section, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Division, Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs, Tokyo Metropolitan Government

—	Fisheries Division, Environment and Agriculture Department, Kanagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Niigata Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries and Fishing Port Division, Toyama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department,

—	Ishikawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Reinan Regional Promotion Bureau, Fukui Prefectural Government

—	Office of Fishery Management, Division of Fishery, Department of Industry, Shizuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Aichi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Resource Office, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Commerce and Industry, Mie Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kyoto Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Osaka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture and Environmental Department, Hyogo Prefectural Government

—	Wakayama Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Division, Fishery Development Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Tottori Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Shimane Prefectural Government

—	Okayama Prefectural Government

—	Hiroshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Yamaguchi Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Tokushima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Agricultural Administration and Fisheries Department, Kagawa Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Fisheries Bureau, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Department, Ehime prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Management Division, Kochi Prefectural Government

—	Fishery Administration Division, Fishery Bureau, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Fukuoka Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Saga Prefectural Government

—	Resource Management Division, Fisheries Department, Nagasaki Prefectural Government

—	Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Kumamoto Prefectural Government

—	Oita Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Administration Division, Agriculture and Fisheries Department, Miyazaki Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Promotion Division, Kagoshima Prefectural Government

—	Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Okinawa Prefectural Government

c),f),g):

—	Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

KEŇA

a):

—	Kenya Maritime Authority

b) to g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

KIRIBATI

a):

—	Ministry of Information, Communications, Transport and Tourism

Development (MICTTF)

b) to g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Development (MFMRD)

JUŽNÁ KÓREA

a),b),d),f),g):

—	Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries

c),e):

—

National Fisheries Products Quality Management Service and 13 regional offices:

—	Busan Regional Office

—	Incheon Regional Office

—	Incheon International Airport Regional Office

—	Seoul Regional Office

—	Pyeongtaek Regional Office

—	Janghang Regional Office

—	Mokpo Regional Office

—	Wando Regional Office

—	Yeosu Regional Office

—	Jeju Regional Office

—	Tongyeong Regional Office

—	Pohang Regional Office

—	Gangneung Regional Office

MADAGASKAR

a):

—	Agence Portuaire Maritime et Fluviale Service Régional de Pêche et des Ressources halieutiques de Diana, Sava, Sofia, Boeny Melaky, Analanjirofo, Atsinanana, Atsimo Atsinanana, Vatovavy Fitovinany, Menabe, Atsimo Andrefana, Anosy, and Androy

b):

—	Ministère chargé de la Pêche

c) and d):

—	Centre de Surveillance des Pêches

e),f),g) :

—	Direction Générale de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques

MALAJZIA

a) and b):

—	Department of Fisheries Malaysia and Department of Fisheries Sabah

c),e),f):

—	Department of Fisheries, Malaysia

d):

—	Department of Fisheries,

g):

—	Department of Fisheries, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro- based

MALDIVY

a):

—	Transport Authority

b),c),e),f),g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture

d):

—	Coast Guard, Maldives National Defense Force Maldives Police Service

MAURITÁNIA

a):

—	Direction de la Marine Marchande

b):

—	Direction de la Pêche industrielle / Direction de la Pêche Artisanale et Côtière

c),d),e),f) :

—	Garde Côtes Mauritanienne (GCM)

g):

—	Ministère des Pêches et de l'Economie Maritime

MAURÍCIUS

a) to g):

—	Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping (Fisheries Division)

MEXIKO

a),c),g):

—	CONAPESCA a través de la Dirección General de Planeación, Programación y Evaluación

b):

—	CONAPESCA a través de la Dirección General de Ordenamiento Pesquero y Acuícola

d),e) :

—	CONAPESCA a través de la Dirección General de Inspección y Vigilancia

—	Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca

ČIERNA HORA

a):

—	Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Telecommunications (Harbour Master Office Bar, Harbour Master Office Kotor)

b) to g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Watermanagement

MAROKO

a),b),e),f):

—	Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture

c):

—

Délégations des Pêches Maritimes de:

—

Jebha

—

Nador

—	Al Hoceima

—

M'diq

—

Tanger

—

Larache

—	Kenitra-Mehdia

—	Mohammedia

—	Casablanca

—

El Jadida

—

Safi

—

Essaouira

—

Agadir

—

Sidi Ifni

—

Tan-Tan

—

Laâyoune

—

Boujdour

—

Dakhla

d):

—	Same as point (c)

—	Direction des Pêches Maritimes

g):

—	Secrétariat Général du Département de la Pêche Maritime

MOZAMBIK

a):

—	National Marine Institute (INAMAR)

b) to g):

—	National Directorate of Fisheries Administration

c):

—	National Direction of Operations

MJANMARSKO

a):

—	Department of Marine Administration

b) to g):

—	Department of Fisheries / Ministry of Livestock, Fisheries and Irrigation

NAMÍBIA

a):

—	Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication

b),d),f),g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

c) and e):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Walvis Bay) and Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Lüderitz)

NOVÁ KALEDÓNIA

a),b),c),e),f) and g):

—	Service des Affaires Maritimes (SAM) de Nouvelle-Calédonie

d):

—	Etat-Major Inter-Armées

NOVÝ ZÉLAND

a) to g):

—	Ministry for Primary Industries

NIKARAGUA

a):

—	Dirección General de Transporte Acuático del Ministerio de Transporte e Infraestructura

b),d),f),g):

—	Instituto Nicaragüense de la Pesca y Acuicultura (INPESCA) through Presidente Ejecutivo

c):

—

Instituto Nicaragüense de la Pesca y Acuicultura (INPESCA) through the Delegaciones Departamentales:

—	Delegación de INPESCA Puerto Cabezas

—	Delegación de INPESCA Chinandega

—	Delegación de INPESCA Bluefields

—	Delegación de INPESCA Rivas

e):

—	Dirección de Monitoreo, Vigilancia y Control, INPESCA

NIGÉRIA

a):

—	Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA)

b):

—	Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development

c),d),f):

—	Federal Department of Fisheries & Aquaculture (Fisheries Resources Monitoring, control & Surveillance (MCS))

e),g):

—	Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development, Director of Fisheries

NÓRSKO

a),b),e),f),g):

—	Directorate of Fisheries

c):

—	On behalf of the Directorate of Fisheries:

—	Norges Sildesalgslag

—	Norges Råfisklag

—	Sunnmøre og Romsdal Fiskesalgslag

—	Vest-Norges Fiskesalgslag

—	Rogaland Fiskesalgslag S/L

—	Skagerakfisk S/L

d):

—	Directorate of Fisheries

—	The Norwegian Coastguard

—	The Police and the Public Prosecuting Authority

OMÁN

a):

—	Ministry of Transport, Communications and Information Technology Directorate General of Maritime Affairs

b),c),d),f):

—	Muscat Governorate: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources Directorate General of Fisheries Resources Development Department of Surveillance & Fisheries Licensing

—	Salalah Governorate: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources Directorate General of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources, DOFAR Governate Department of Fisheries Resources

e),g):

—	Muscat Governorate: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries Wealth and Water Resources Directorate General of Fisheries Resources Development Department of Surveillance & Fisheries Licensing

PAKISTAN

a),c),e),f):

—	Mercantile Marine Department

b) and d):

—	Marine Fisheries Department / Directorate of Fisheries

g):

—	Ministry of Livestock & Dairy Development

PANAMA

a):

—	Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá (Dirección General de Ordenación y Manejo Costero Integral) Autoridad Marítima de Panamá (Dirección General de Marina Mercante)

b):

—	Dirección General de Ordenación y Manejo Costero Integral

c) to g):

—	Administración General Secretaría General Dirección General de Inspecciòn, Vigilancia y Control

PAPUA-NOVÁ GUINEA

a),b),f),g):

—	PNG National Fisheries Authority

c),d),e):

—	PNG National Fisheries Authority (Head Office) Monitoring Control and Surveillance Division, Audit & Certification Unit

—	National Fisheries Authority, Audit & Certification Unit, Lae Port Office

—	National Fisheries Authority, Audit & Certification Unit, Madang Port Office

—	National Fisheries Authority, Audit & Certification Unit, Wewak Port Office

PERU

a) and b):

—	Director General de Extracción y Procesamiento pesquero del Ministerio and Direcciones Regionales de la Producción de los Gobiernos Regionales de Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad, Ancash, Lima, Callao, Ica, Arquipa, Moquegua y Tacna

c),d),e):

—	Dirección General de Seguimiento, Control y Vigilancia del Ministerio de Producción and Direcciones Regionales de la Producción de los Gobiernos Regionales de Tumbes, Piura, Lambayeque, La Libertad, Ancash, Lima, Callao, Ica, Arquipa, Moquegua y Tacna

f):

—	Director General de Seguimiento, Control y Vigilancia del Ministerio de la Producción

g):

—	Viceministro de Pesquería del Ministerio de la Producción

FILIPÍNY

a):

—	Maritime Industry Authority

b) to g):

—	Bureau for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture

RUSKO

a) to g):

—	Federal Agency for Fisheries, Territorial department of Barentsevo- Belomorskoye, Primorskoye, Zapadno-Baltiyskoye, Azovo- Chernomorskoye, Amur, Okhotsk, Sakhalin-Kuril, North-Eastern.

SAINT PIERRE A MIQUELON

a),c) to g):

—	DTAM – Service des affaires maritime et portuaires

b):

—	Préfecture de Saint-Pierre et Miquelon

SENEGAL

a):

—	Agence nationale des Affaires maritimes

b):

—	Ministre en charge de la Pêche

c):

—	Direction de la Protection et de la Surveillance des Pêches (DPSP)

d) to g):

—	Direction de la Protection et de la Surveillance des Pêches (DPSP)

SEYCHELY

a):

—	Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration

b):

—	Seychelles Licensing Authority

c) to g):

—	Seychelles Fishing Authority

ŠALAMÚNOVE OSTROVY

a):

—	Marine Division, Ministry of Infrastructure and Development (MID)

b) to g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR)

JUŽNÁ AFRIKA

a) to g):

—	Branch: Fisheries Management, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

SRÍ LANKA

a) to g):

—	Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

SVÄTÁ HELENA, ASCENSION A TRISTAN DA CUNHA

a):

—	Registrar of Shipping, St. Helena Government

b),d) to g):

—	Senior Fisheries Officer, Directorate of Fisheries, St Helena Government

c):

—	H.M. Customs, Government of St Helena

SURINAM

a):

—	Maritime Authority Suriname

b) to g):

—	Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries

TAIWAN

a):

—	Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

—	Maritime and Port Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communication

b):

—	Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

c):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

d):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

—	Coast Guard Administration, Executive Yuan

e):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

f):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

g):

—	Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan

FRANCÚZSKE JUŽNÉ A ANTARKTICKÉ ÚZEMIA (TAAF)

a) to g):

—	Monsieur le Préfet Administrateur supérieur des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises

THAJSKO

a) and b):

—	The Department of Fisheries

—	The Marine Department

c) to g):

—	The Department of Fisheries

TRISTAN DA CUNHA

(a):

—	Administration Department

b),d):

—	Administration Department / Fisheries Department

c),e),f),g):

—	Fisheries Department

TUNISKO

a):

—	Office de la Marine Marchande et des Ports/ Ministère du Transport

b) to d):

—	Arrondissement de la Pêche et de l'Aquaculture de Jendouba, Bizerte, Ariana, Tunis, Nabeul, Sousse, Monastir, Mahdia, and Gabes and Division de la Pêche et de l'Aquaculture de Sfax and Médenine

e) to g):

—	La Direction Générale de la Pêche et de l'Aquaculture / Ministère de l'Agriculture et des Ressources hydrauliques

TURECKO

a) and b):

—	81 Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

c):

—	General Directorate for Protection and Conservation, 81 Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and 24 Districts Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

d):

—	General Directorate for Protection and Conservation, 81 Provincial Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and Turkish Coast Guard Command

e) to g):

—	General Directorate for Protection and Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

UKRAJINA

a):

—	State Enterprise Maritime Administration of Illichivsk Sea Fishing Port State Enterprise Maritime Administration of Kerch Sea Fishing Port State Enterprise Office of Captain of Mariupol Sea Fishing Port State Enterprise Office of Captain of Sevastopol Sea Fishing Port

c):

—

State Agency of Melioration and Fisheries of Ukraine

Department of the State Agency of Melioration and Fisheries of Ukraine in:

—	Black Sea Basin

—	Azov Basin

—	Chernihiv region

—	Chernivtsi region

—	Cherkasy region

—	Khmelnytskyi region

—	Kherson region

—	Kharkiv region

—	Ternopil region

—	Sumy region

—	Rivne region

—	Poltava region

—	Odesa region

—	Mykolaiv region

—	Lviv region

—	Luhansk region

—	Department of protection, use and reproduction of water

—	bioresources and regulation of fisheries in Kirvohrad region

—	Kyiv and Kyiv region

—	Ivano-Krankivsk region

—	Zaporizhia region

—	Zakarpattia region

—	Zhytomyr region

—	Donetsk region

—	Dnipropetrovsk region

—	Volyn region

—	Vinnytsia region

b), d) to g):

—	State Agency of Melioration and Fisheries of Ukraine (Derzhrybagentstvo of Ukraine)

SPOJENÉ ARABSKÉ EMIRÁTY

a) to g):

—	Fisheries Department, Ministry of Environment & Water (MOEW)

SPOJENÉ KRÁĽOVSTVO (3)

a):

—	England: Fishing Vessel Registry, Maritime and Coastguard Agency

—	Scotland: Fishing Vessel Registry, Maritime and Coastguard Agency

—	Wales: Fishing Vessel Registry, Maritime and Coastguard Agency

—	Northern Ireland: DAERA Marine and Fisheries Division, Fisheries Inspectorate Team, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

—	Isle of Man: Department Environment Food and Agriculture, Fisheries Directorate

—	Guernsey: Registrer of British Ships

—	Jersey: Marine Resources, Growth Housing and Environment

b):

—	England: Marine Management Organisation

—	Scotland: Marine Scotland

—	Wales: Welsh Government, Marine, Fisheries Division

—	Northern Ireland: DAERA Marine and Fisheries Division, Fisheries Inspectorate Team, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

—	Isle of Man: Department Environment Food and Agriculture, Fisheries Directorate

—	Guernsey: Seafisheries, Committee for Economic Development, States of Guernsey

—	Jersey: Marine Resources, Growth Housing and Environment

c),d),e):

—	England: Marine Management Organisation

—	Scotland: Marine Scotland

—	Wales: Welsh Government, Marine, Fisheries Division

—	Northern Ireland: Fisheries Inspectorate Team, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

—	Isle of Man: Department Environment Food and Agriculture, Fisheries Directorate

—	Guernsey: Seafisheries, Committee for Economic Development, State of Guernsey

—	Jersey: Marine Resources, Growth Housing and Environment

f),g):

England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey: Marine Management Organisation

TANZÁNIJSKÁ ZJEDNOTENÁ REPUBLIKA

a) to g):

—	Director of Fisheries Development

URUGUAJ

a) to g):

—	Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos (DINARA)

USA

a):

—	United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

b) to g):

—	National Marine Fisheries Service

VENEZUELA

a) to b):

—	Instituto Socialista de la Pesca y Acuicultura

VIETNAM

a) to b):

—	Directorate of Fisheries (D-FISH) at national level Sub-Departments of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection at provincial level

c) and f):

—	Sub-Departments of Capture Fisheries

d):

—	Fisheries Surveillance Department belonging to D-FISH

—	Inspections of Agriculture and Rural Development belonging to the provinces

—	Sub-Departments of Capture Fisheries and Resources Protection.

e) and g):

—	Directorate of Fisheries (D-FISH)

WALLIS A FUTUNA

a):

—	Le Chef du Service des Douanes et des Affaires Maritimes

b) and g):

—	Le Préfet, Administrateur supérieur

c) to f):

—	Le Directeur du Service d'Etat de l'Agriculture, de la Forêt et de la Pêche

JEMEN

a):

—	Maritime Affairs Authority - Ministry of Transport

b) to g):

—	Production & Marketing Services Sector - Ministry of Fish Wealth and its branches from Aden, Alhodeidah, Hadramout, Almahara

(1) Ú. v. EÚ L 286, 29.10.2008, s. 1.

(2) Podľa článku 31 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1005/2008 Európska komisia 5. januára 2023 identifikovala Kamerun ako nespolupracujúcu krajinu v boji proti NNN rybolovu (Ú. v. EÚ L 8, 11.1.2023, s. 4 – 15). V súlade s článkom 33 uvedeného nariadenia Rada Európskej komisie zaradila Kamerun do zoznamu ako nespolupracujúcu krajinu v boji proti NNN rybolovu (Ú. v. EÚ L 56, 23.2.2023, s. 26 – 28). Dovoz produktov rybolovu vylovených rybárskymi plavidlami plaviacimi sa pod vlajkou Kamerunu do Únie sa v súlade s článkom 38 uvedeného nariadenia zakazuje.

(3) Uplatňuje sa od 1. januára 2021.

13.4.2023

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 129/22

Rozhodnutie č. 44/23/COL z 8. marca 2023 o začatí formálneho vyšetrovania údajnej štátnej pomoci poskytnutej spoločnosti Farice

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok k štátnej pomoci podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu

(2023/C 129/04)

Uvedeným rozhodnutím, ktorého znenie v autentickom jazyku sa nachádza za týmto zhrnutím, Dozorný úrad EZVO oznámil islandským orgánom svoje rozhodnutie začať konanie podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu.

Dotknuté strany môžu posielať pripomienky do jedného mesiaca od dátumu zverejnenia na túto adresu:

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Avenue des Arts 19H

1000 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

registry@eftasurv.int

Tieto pripomienky sa oznámia islandským orgánom. Zainteresovaná strana, ktorá predkladá pripomienky, môže písomne s uvedením dôvodov požiadať o dôverné zaobchádzanie s údajmi o jej totožnosti.

Zhrnutie

Postup

Dňa 23. februára 2021 prijal Dozorný úrad EZVO sťažnosť (ďalej len „sťažnosť“) od spoločnosti Sýn hf. (ďalej len „Sýn“) týkajúcu sa spoločnosti Farice. Spoločnosť Sýn tvrdila okrem iného, že: 1. spoločnosť Farice dostala náhradu za náklady v súvislosti s prieskumami vykonanými pri príprave tretieho podmorského kábla (ďalej len „opatrenie 1“) a 2. došlo k porušeniu povinnosti zachovať existujúci stav, pokiaľ ide o investíciu spoločnosti Farice do tretieho podmorského kábla medzi Islandom a Európou (ďalej len „kábel IRIS“ alebo „opatrenie 2“).

Dozornému úradu EZVO bola 23. marca 2021 doručená formálna notifikácia od islandských orgánov týkajúca sa investície do kábla IRIS (ďalej len „opatrenie 2“). Dozorný úrad EZVO prijal 26. marca 2021 rozhodnutie 023/21/COL týkajúce sa pomoci spoločnosti Farice ehf. na investíciu do tretieho podmorského kábla (Aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable), v ktorom uviedol, že nemá pochybnosti o zlučiteľnosti pomoci s fungovaním Dohody o EHP podľa jej článku 61 ods. 3 písm. c), a preto nemá námietky proti vykonaniu opatrenia.

Spoločnosť Sýn podala 9. júla 2021 na Súd EZVO návrh podľa článku 36 Dohody o dozore a súde, ktorým sa domáhala zrušenia rozhodnutia č. 023/21/COL z 26. marca 2021.

Rozsudkom z 1. júna 2022 Súd EZVO zrušil rozhodnutie Dozorného úradu EZVO 023/21/COL (1).

Opis príslušnej pomoci

Údajným príjemcom pomoci je spoločnosť Farice ehf. (ďalej len „Farice“). Farice je spoločnosťou s ručením obmedzeným v úplnom vlastníctve islandského štátu. Spoločnosť Farice sa zaoberá veľkoobchodným medzinárodným prenosom údajov medzi krajinami prostredníctvom optického kábla, prevádzkou systémov optických káblov a predajom služieb súvisiacich s týmito činnosťami. Spoločnosť Farice prevádzkuje dva podmorské káble vedúce z Islandu do niektorých častí Európy: FARICE-1 a DANICE.

Islandský parlament 3. júna 2019 schválil uznesenie o politike elektronických komunikácií na roky 2019 až 2033 (ďalej len „telekomunikačná politika“). Cieľom tejto politiky je okrem iného podporovať dostupnú a účinnú komunikáciu a zaručiť bezpečnosť infraštruktúry. Na dosiahnutie týchto cieľov sa v politike zdôrazňuje, že na prepojenie Islandu so zvyškom Európy sú potrebné tri aktívne podmorské káble z rôznych miest vyústenia.

Rozhodnutie sa týka dvoch opatrení.

Opatrenie 1 sa týka náhrady pre spoločnosť Farice za výskum morského dna pri príprave na možnú výstavbu nového podmorského kábla medzi Islandom a Európou. Základom prác a náhrady je zmluva podpísaná v roku 2018 medzi Telekomunikačným fondom (ďalej len „fond“) a spoločnosťou Farice. Odhadované náklady pri podpise zmluvy predstavovali 1,9 milióna EUR.

Opatrenie 2 sa týka investície spoločnosti Farice do kábla IRIS. Islandské orgány vybrali spoločnosť Farice, aby vybudovala a prevádzkovala tretí podmorský kábel spájajúci Island a Európu, t. j. kábel IRIS. Opatrenie 2 financoval islandský štát prostredníctvom navýšenia kapitálu spoločnosti Farice, ktorá je v úplnom vlastníctve islandského štátu, o odhadovaných 50 miliónov EUR.

Posúdenie

Existencia štátnej pomoci

Dozorný úrad EZVO vo svojom rozhodnutí dospel k predbežnému názoru, že nemôže vylúčiť, že opatrenie 1 predstavovalo štátnu pomoc v prospech spoločnosti Farice.

Konkrétne Dozorný úrad EZVO nemôže vylúčiť, že platby, ktoré fond poskytol spoločnosti Farice za vykonanie podmorského prieskumu, poskytli spoločnosti Farice selektívnu výhodu, keďže má pochybnosti, že sa tieto platby uskutočnili za trhových podmienok.

Dozorný úrad EZVO vo svojom rozhodnutí ďalej dospel k predbežnému názoru, že opatrenie 2 predstavuje štátnu pomoc.

Zlučiteľnosť pomoci

Pokiaľ ide o potenciálnu zlučiteľnosť opatrenia 1, Dozorný úrad EZVO nedostal žiadne argumenty v tomto zmysle a vyzval islandské orgány, aby takéto argumenty poskytli.

Pokiaľ ide o potenciálnu zlučiteľnosť opatrenia 2, Dozorný úrad EZVO poznamenáva, že zlučiteľnosť pomoci na zavádzanie širokopásmových sietí na účely zabezpečenia pokrytia, prístupu alebo pripojenia sa zvyčajne posudzuje podľa usmernení o širokopásmovom pripojení.

Hlavným cieľom usmernení o širokopásmovom pripojení je vo všeobecnosti zabezpečiť širokú dostupnosť širokopásmových služieb pre koncových používateľov alebo prístup k rýchlejšiemu internetu. Preto sa uplatňujú na opatrenia pomoci, ktoré sú zamerané na situácie, keď trh neposkytuje dostatočné širokopásmové pokrytie alebo keď podmienky prístupu nie sú vhodné. Naopak, v usmerneniach o širokopásmovom pripojení sa nespomína medzinárodná pripojiteľnosť, bezpečnosť, medzinárodný prenos údajov ani podmorské káble a ani sa v nich osobitne nestanovujú podmienky týkajúce sa zlučiteľnosti opatrení zameraných na bezpečnostné otázky vyplývajúce z nedostatočnej geografickej rozmanitosti a spoľahlivosti služieb medzinárodnej pripojiteľnosti.

Preto sa zdá, že opatrenie 2, ktorého cieľom je zvýšenie redundancie, bezpečnosti a spoľahlivosti služieb medzinárodného pripojenia, ktoré už koncoví zákazníci majú dostupné pri vysokých rýchlostiach, sa líši od všeobecného typu opatrení, na ktoré sa vzťahujú usmernenia o širokopásmovom pripojení, a to opatrení týkajúcich sa rozširovania alebo zavádzania širokopásmových sietí a služieb.

Dozornému úradu EZVO však v tejto fáze nie je jasné, do akej miery sa usmernenia o širokopásmovom pripojení vzťahujú na posúdenie zlučiteľnosti opatrenia 2. Preto Dozorný úrad EZVO vyzval islandské orgány, aby poskytli ďalšie argumenty.

V prípade, že sa usmernenia o širokopásmovom pripojení nevzťahujú na dané opatrenie, v článku 61 ods. 3 písm. c) Dohody o EHP sa stanovuje, že Dozorný úrad EZVO môže za zlučiteľnú vyhlásiť „pomoc na rozvoj určitých hospodárskych činností alebo určitých hospodárskych oblastí, za predpokladu, že táto podpora nepriaznivo neovplyvní podmienky obchodu tak, že by to bolo v rozpore so spoločným záujmom“. Preto, aby sa pomoc mohla vyhlásiť za zlučiteľnú, v prvom rade jej cieľom musí byť uľahčenie rozvoja určitých hospodárskych činností alebo určitých hospodárskych oblastí a v druhom rade táto pomoc nesmie nepriaznivo ovplyvňovať podmienky obchodu v takom rozsahu, aby to bolo v rozpore so spoločným záujmom.

V tejto súvislosti Dozorný úrad EZVO dospel k predbežnému záveru, že má pochybnosti o nevyhnutnosti opatrenia 2. Pred tým, ako sa uskutočnila investícia do kábla IRIS, sa na islandské orgány obrátil súkromný hospodársky subjekt s návrhom na vybudovanie tretieho podmorského kábla. Preto, hoci v tejto fáze nie je Dozornému úradu EZVO jasné, či táto ponuka bola porovnateľná s projektom kábla IRIS alebo či naznačuje pokus o vstup na trh služieb medzinárodného dátového pripojenia, Dozorný úrad EZVO nemôže vylúčiť možnosť, že trh mohol zabezpečiť výsledok, ktorý sa sledoval opatrením 2, čo spochybňuje tvrdenie islandských orgánov, že bolo potrebné napraviť presne vymedzené zlyhanie trhu.

Dozorný úrad EZVO má okrem toho pochybnosti o proporcionalite opatrenia 2. Hoci islandské orgány navrhli opatrenie 2 s cieľom obmedziť výšku pomoci, Dozorný úrad EZVO predbežne konštatuje, že existencia údajne nákladovo efektívnejšej alternatívy spochybňuje celkovú proporcionalitu opatrenia, keďže chýba odôvodnenie rozdielu v cene.

A napokon Dozorný úrad EZVO dospel k predbežnému záveru, že má pochybnosti, či je nepriaznivý vplyv opatrení na hospodársku súťaž a obchod v dostatočnej miere obmedzený.

V dôsledku toho Dozorný úrad EZVO dospel k predbežnému záveru, že má pochybnosti o tom, či pozitívne účinky opatrenia 2 prevažujú nad jeho možným narušením hospodárskej súťaže a nepriaznivým vplyvom na obchod.

Decision No 44/23/COL of 8 March 2023 to open a formal investigation into alleged state aid to Farice

1. Summary

The EFTA Surveillance Authority („ESA“) wishes to inform Iceland that, having preliminarily assessed the alleged aid to Farice ehf. („Farice“) for performing a seabed survey („Measure 1“) and for investment in a third submarine cable („Measure 2“), it has doubts as to whether Measure 1 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and as to whether Measures 1 and 2 are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. ESA has therefore decided to open a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Articles 4(4), 6 and 13 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement („Protocol 3“). ESA has based its decision on the following considerations.

2. Procedure

(1)

By letter dated 27 January 2021, the Icelandic authorities initiated pre-notification discussions with ESA concerning their plans to increase capital in Farice, in order to invest in a third submarine cable between Iceland and Europe („the IRIS cable“), i.e. Measure 2 (2).

(2)

On 23 February 2021, ESA received a complaint („the complaint“) from Sýn hf. („Sýn“) regarding Farice (3). Sýn alleged that Farice received public service compensation from the Icelandic authorities in violation of the SGEI rules (4), including compensation for costs related to surveys conducted in preparation for a possible third submarine cable. Sýn also alleged a violation of the standstill obligation as regards Farice’s investment in the IRIS cable.

(3)

On 23 February 2021, ESA forwarded the complaint to the Icelandic authorities and invited them to provide comments by 25 March 2021 (5).

(4)

On 23 March 2021, ESA received a formal notification from the Icelandic authorities regarding Measure 2 (6). On 26 March 2021, ESA adopted Decision 023/21/COL on Aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable.

(5)

By email dated 25 March 2021, the Icelandic authorities requested an extension of the deadline to provide comments on the complaint. ESA extended the deadline to 31 March 2021. On 31 March 2021, the Icelandic authorities provided ESA with their initial comments on the complaint (7).

(6)

On 9 July 2021, Sýn lodged an application with the EFTA Court under Article 36 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement („SCA“), seeking the annulment of Decision No 023/21/COL of 26 March 2021.

(7)

On 20 January 2022, ESA sent a request for information to the Icelandic authorities concerning the complaint (8). On 16 March 2022, the Icelandic authorities provided their response to the request for information (9).

(8)

On 1 June 2022, the EFTA Court annulled Decision No 023/21/COL (10).

(9)

On 21 June 2022, ESA sent the Icelandic authorities a second request for information concerning the complaint (11). The Icelandic authorities responded on 20 September 2022 (12).

(10)

On 8 November 2022, ESA had a meeting with a representative of Sýn (13).

3. Description of the measures

3.1. Background

(11)

Farice is a private limited liability company established in Iceland. It was founded in 2002 by Icelandic and Faroese parties. According to its articles of association, the purpose of Farice is the wholesale of international data transfer between countries through a fibre optic cable, the operations of fibre optic cable systems, and the sale of services in relation to such activities. The Icelandic State acquired Farice in full in March 2019 following the classification of international submarine cables as infrastructure. All of Farice’s long-term borrowing comes from the Icelandic Treasury

(12)

Farice operates two submarine cables running from Iceland to parts of Europe: FARICE-1 and DANICE. FARICE-1 connects Iceland with Scotland, with a branch unit to the Faroe Islands. DANICE connects Iceland with Denmark. FARICE-1 and DANICE are the only submarine cables running from Iceland to Europe and they intersect in the Atlantic Ocean. A third submarine cable, Greenland Connect, runs from Iceland to Canada via Greenland. Greenland Connect is owned and operated by Tele Greenland. It terminates in Iceland and its traffic is directed through FARICE-1 and DANICE on the way to Europe. It is possible to buy services from Tele Greenland to mainland Canada and from there to New York.

(13)

Between 2010 and 2012, the Icelandic authorities engaged in a series of measures for the restructuring of Farice, due to its financial difficulties. During the same period, the Icelandic authorities submitted various State aid notifications to ESA. These were later withdrawn because the Icelandic authorities concluded that the SGEI Decision applied to these measures (14). On 19 July 2013, ESA sent a comfort letter to the Icelandic authorities noting that Article 3 of the SGEI Decision exempted the Icelandic authorities from the prior notification obligation under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA (15).

(14)

The first public service contract between Farice and the Telecommunications Fund („the Fund“), representing the Icelandic authorities, was entered into on 12 April 2012.

(15)

In November 2018, the Minister for Transport and Local Government submitted a proposal to the Icelandic Parliament for a resolution on an electronic communications policy 2019 to 2033 („the Telecommunication Policy“). The objectives of the policy are, inter alia, to promote accessible and effective communications and to guarantee the security of infrastructure. To achieve those objectives, the policy emphasises that three active submarine cables are needed to connect Iceland with the rest of Europe from different landing sites. As a geographically remote country, effective international connections are a prerequisite for the development of Iceland as a modern technology-based society. A serious disruption in international connectivity would cause major damage to the Icelandic economy, and society as a whole.

(16)

Between 2017 and 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Local Government, and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs received several proposals from Sýn regarding the construction of a third submarine cable. The proposals included both an independent project and a collaboration with Celtic Norse AS. These proposals did not entail financing in full by private investors but required cooperation with the Icelandic State and/or Farice.

(17)

On 21 December 2018, Farice signed a new public service contract with the Fund regarding the Icelandic authorities’ work on the Telecommunications Policy („the 2018 PSO Contract“). Farice was engaged to start preparations for the possible construction of a new submarine cable between Iceland and Europe. Farice was compensated for the costs of the preparation work that it undertook on behalf of the Fund, which also included compensation for seabed research to be carried out by Farice in 2019, i.e. Measure 1. The Icelandic State’s participation in further investment or costs for a third cable was neither secured nor structured at that time.

(18)

In January 2019, Sýn submitted a formal request for funding of seabed research in preparation for the introduction of the submarine cable project. In February 2019, the Fund refused to engage in any discussions with Sýn, referring to the public service contract concluded with Farice in December 2018, according to which Farice was entrusted with seabed research as an intermediary.

(19)

On 3 June 2019, the Icelandic Parliament approved the Telecommunications Policy.

(20)

In December 2019, Sýn and the Board of the Fund had a meeting during which Sýn presented its case for a third submarine cable between Iceland and Ireland. Sýn offered to build a submarine cable for remuneration and required a guarantee that Farice would change its operating model to a so-called „carrier’s carrier“ model.

(21)

In March 2020, the Fund engaged an independent expert to evaluate the feasibility of Sýn’s and Farice’s third cable projects. The expert’s report was delivered in April 2020. According to Sýn, the report concluded that the project proposed by Sýn was more cost effective. According to the Icelandic authorities, the expert was instructed not to make recommendations. However, the report included recommendations and relied on available, but allegedly unverified, data from Farice and Sýn.

(22)

By letter of 29 April 2020, the Ministry of Transport and Local Government shared the results of the report with Farice and stated that Farice would be responsible for the project and the envisaged owner and operator of the new submarine cable. The Ministry urged Farice to take account of the fact that Sýn’s proposal had been considered more cost effective by the expert. The Ministry stated that it found Sýn’s proposal to change the operational model of Farice unacceptable.

(23)

In May 2020, Sýn and Farice held a meeting to explore the details and validity of Sýn’s proposal and to confirm pricing and quality from key suppliers. According to the Icelandic authorities, Sýn was not able to confirm the prices because the key suppliers had not been willing to confirm their prices. As the foundation for the discussions between Farice and Sýn was the project’s cost effectiveness, which was based on the prices submitted, the discussions were terminated.

(24)

Later in May 2020, the Fund communicated to Sýn that it considered the expiry of the offers to be unacceptable. It further stated that it would therefore not engage in any further discussions with Sýn. It was further stressed that the Fund was not responsible for the project since its role was limited to the provision of funds.

(25)

On 23 February 2021, Sýn lodged a complaint with ESA. Sýn submitted that payments to Farice from the Icelandic State since 2013 had erroneously been classified as a public service compensation as the conditions to be considered as services of a general economic interest had never been met. It further submitted that there was an ongoing breach of State aid rules related to the introduction of a new submarine cable.

(26)

On 23 March 2021, the Icelandic authorities formally notified ESA of their intention to provide aid to Farice for investment in the third cable, i.e. Measure 2. On 26 March 2021, ESA adopted Decision No 023/21/COL approving the measure. That decision was later annulled by the EFTA Court.

3.2. Measure 1

(27)

According to Article 1A of the 2018 PSO Contract between Farice and the Fund, the „parties [to the agreement] agree that the Fund will compensate Farice for seabed research to be carried out in 2019 for a possible optic fibre cable between Iceland and Europe (Ireland) according to article 12 of this contract“.

(28)

In Article 12 of the same contract, it is further stated that „[t]he Fund intends to do a seabed survey on a route between Europe (Ireland) and Iceland for an optic fibre cable to be possibly laid in the near future. Farice undertakes the execution of the projects as an intermediary. Preliminary time and cost schedule is described in annex 1. Farice shall aim to deliver a final marine route survey report to the Fund before December 31, 2019“. The temporal scope of the survey was later extended to 2021.

(29)

According to annex 1, the compensated costs related to the survey were: 1) a desk top study; 2) survey; 3) inshore survey; 4) main survey (excluding inshore survey); 5) reporting and maps; and 6) overhead costs. The costs were estimated at EUR 1,9 million.

(30)

In accordance with the contract, Farice undertook the survey in the years 2019, 2020 and 2021. Payments for third party works, for example the work performed by EGS (16) (the main survey contactor) were invoiced to the Fund based on costs incurred. Work performed by Farice employees was invoiced on the basis of an hourly rate. Additionally, Farice invoiced an administration fee for general administration costs in 2019.

3.3. Measure 2

(31)

In relation to the Icelandic authorities’ work on the Telecommunications Policy, the Icelandic authorities selected Farice to build and operate a third submarine cable connecting Iceland and Europe, i.e. the IRIS cable. Measure 2 relates to the financing by the Icelandic State of the IRIS cable through an estimated EUR 50 million capital increase in Farice, which is wholly owned by the Icelandic State (17).

(32)

According to the Icelandic authorities, Farice was chosen because it is the only entity that: (i) currently operates submarine cables from Iceland to Europe, (ii) has extensive experience in such operations, and (iii) was able to work fast in seeing the project through within the desired timeframe.

(33)

Farice is currently operated on commercial terms without financial support from the State (18) and offers services on two distinct markets: the market for international connectivity („international data transfer market“) and the data centre market („DC market“).

(34)

The primary objective of the measure and the IRIS cable project is to enhance security and reduce the vulnerability of international connectivity to and from Iceland. The secondary objective is to shorten the digital distance between Iceland and Europe, by reducing data latency.

(35)

The new submarine cable is in principle expected to complement the existing submarine cable infrastructure. According to the Icelandic authorities, the interconnection to the new cable will be technologically neutral, provided that instructions and recommendations are followed (19).

(36)

Moreover, according to the Icelandic authorities, Farice grants effective wholesale access to the system on an open and non-discriminatory basis and those access obligations will be enforced irrespective of any change in ownership, management or operation of the infrastructure.

(37)

The eligible costs of Measure 2 are the investment costs related to the new cable, costs relating to survey of the seabed and the optimal path of the cable (20), construction of landing sites and project management. The costs are considered investment costs, including project management costs which are directly related to the investment project. The maximum aid intensity is 100 % of the eligible costs. The board of directors of Farice authorised the capital increase for established costs in intervals during the construction period of the new cable. According to the Icelandic authorities, any overcompensation is controlled retroactively through a capital decrease, dividend payments or by other available means.

(38)

Farice signed a contract with SubCom LLC, a global undersea fibre optic cable system supply company, to lay the IRIS cable, after having elicited offers from three different suppliers. On 11 November 2022, SubCom formally handed over the IRIS cable, which is expected to be ready for service in the first quarter of 2023 (21).

3.4. The Complaint

(39)

As previously mentioned, on 23 February 2021, Sýn submitted a complaint to ESA regarding alleged unlawful State aid measures in favour of Farice. In summary, the complaint concerns three measures:

1.	The payment of compensation for services of general economic interest („SGEI“) from the Icelandic authorities to Farice for the public service obligation („PSO“) of providing international connectivity for electronic communication („the SGEI measure“);

2.	compensation paid to Farice for carrying out a seabed survey as an intermediary, i.e. Measure 1; and

3.	non-compliance with the stand-still obligation in relation to the roll-out of the third submarine cable between Iceland and Europe, i.e. Measure 2.

(40)

The SGEI measure, covered by Sýn’s complaint, was not the subject of the annulled Decision No 023/21/COL, nor the judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21. Therefore, this measure is not the subject of this Decision, and is currently being processed separately in an open complaint case (22). Conversely, Measures 1 and 2 are the subject of this Decision.

(41)

As regards Measure 1, Sýn submitted that Iceland had under the 2018 PSO Contract agreed to compensate Farice for seabed research to be carried out in 2019. The agreement was later extended (see section 3.2).

(42)

Sýn argued in its complaint that the compensation for the seabed research did not fulfil any of the SGEI criteria, whether under the Altmark conditions (23), the SGEI Decision (24), or the SGEI Framework (25). In particular, Sýn argued that seabed research could not be qualified as a service of general economic interest, and even if it could be, no parameters for the calculation of compensation for such a service had been established.

(43)

As regards Measure 2, Sýn asserted in its complaint that the Icelandic authorities seemed to have entrusted Farice with the roll-out of a new submarine cable funded by the State. In Sýn’s view this constituted a breach of the EEA State aid rules. Sýn was unaware that at the time they submitted the complaint, ESA and the Icelandic authorities were engaged in pre-notification discussion regarding the roll-out to the new submarine cable (26).

(44)

Therefore, Sýn submitted that the actions of the Icelandic authorities related to the roll-out of a new submarine cable, including the payment for seabed research under the auspices of a public service obligation, constituted a breach of the EEA State aid rules, which called for action by ESA.

3.5. Comments of the Icelandic authorities

(45)

The Icelandic authorities have provided their views as regards Measures 1 and 2. These views were expressed during the notification procedure leading up to Decision 023/21/COL (27), as well as in replies to questions sent to them by ESA in connection to the complaint (28).

3.5.1. Regarding Measure 1

(46)

The Icelandic authorities have maintained that the payments to Farice related to the seabed survey did not constitute compensation for a public service, even though contractual provisions related to the survey were included in the 2018 PSO contract (29).

(47)

Instead, the Icelandic authorities have stated that the work related to the survey was allocated to Farice on market terms, in line with the market economy operator principle. Specifically, the Icelandic authorities contend that the award of the seabed survey did not grant Farice an economic advantage that an undertaking could not have obtained in the absence of State intervention, and that it was, in essence, a service assignment, for which Farice was paid the incurred costs. In the view of the Icelandic authorities, this is demonstrated by the fact that the Fund, and not Farice, retains all ownership of survey results and that Farice did not de facto make a profit for administering the survey.

(48)

Moreover, the Icelandic authorities have submitted that Measure 1 did not distort or threaten to distort competition and did not have any effect on trade between the Contracting Parties.

(49)

Specifically, the Icelandic authorities stated that the measure did not grant Farice a stronger competitive position than it would have had if the survey had not been undertaken, and that Farice was not relieved of expenses it would otherwise have had to bear in the course of its day-to-day business operations. The Icelandic authorities had full discretion to utilise the seabed survey in any way they saw fit and no utilization guarantees were granted to Farice. Therefore, the Icelandic authorities contend that the award of the seabed survey did not strengthen the position of Farice as compared with other undertakings.

(50)

Finally, the Icelandic authorities are of the view that the Fund was exempt from the procurement rules when awarding a contract of carrying out the seabed survey, as it was an essential part of preparing the IRIS cable project and therefore a factor in providing a public communications network.

(51)

Consequently, the Icelandic authorities argue that Measure 1 does not constitute State aid.

3.5.2. Regarding Measure 2

(52)

The Icelandic authorities consider Measure 2 to constitute State aid, which is compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, and that the measure falls outside the scope of the Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks („the 2014 Broadband Guidelines“) (30).

(53)

In this regard, the Icelandic authorities note that the measure contributes to a well-defined objective of common interest, i.e. to enhance the security of international connectivity to and from Iceland. The aid measure serves to significantly reduce the vulnerability of Iceland’s international telecommunications network in case of major failures of the current systems.

(54)

Further, as regards the need for State intervention, the Icelandic authorities contend that market failure necessitates State participation in the IRIS cable project. Specifically, the Icelandic authorities note that Farice is the only operator of submarine cables connecting Iceland to Europe, and that despite some interest from private parties to lay similar cables in the past, none of those plans have materialised (31). The Icelandic authorities argue that three main causes have adversely affected the feasibility of other submarine projects to the point where none of them materialized: First, laying a single cable to Iceland without having secured redundancy in connections without material cost through another cable has proven problematic. Second, the small size of the Icelandic market is a natural hindrance. Third, the uncertainty of income from international data centre operators disincentivises investment.

(55)

Moreover, the Icelandic authorities point to the fact that Farice required public service compensation from 2012 to 2018 to operate the two existing cables, i.e. FARICE-1 and DANICE, and that Farice’s current revenues do not support investment in the IRIS cable.

(56)

Consequently, in the absence of a realistic chance of private actors building the submarine infrastructure needed to secure international connectivity to Iceland, and since Farice’s current revenues do not support investment in a third cable, the Icelandic authorities found it necessary to provide Farice with State aid to lay the IRIS cable.

(57)

Moreover, the Icelandic authorities contend that Measure 2 was proportional. In this regard, they note that only established costs were financed through the capital increase. Moreover, the ex post control, including a review of any expenses, will keep costs to the minimum necessary.

(58)

Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have consistently argued that the IRIS project is not subject to public procurement rules, as it is exempt from the Procurement Act (32), with reference to Article 10 of the Act, cf. Article 8 of the Procurement Directive (33), as the Act and the Directive do not apply to contracts for the principal purpose of permitting the contracting authorities to provide or exploit public communications networks or to provide to the public one or more electronic communications services.

(59)

However, when choosing a subcontractor to lay the cable, Farice engaged in discussions with three suppliers, and selected the most economically efficient offer, having taken account of all relevant considerations.

(60)

As regards the expert report that concluded that the proposal of Sýn was more cost effective than the one from Farice, the Icelandic authorities argue that the cost estimate used by the expert was not verified. Further, that Sýn specifically notified the Icelandic authorities that the supposed offer from Vodafone International was no longer valid. Moreover, the conditions on the operational function of the new cable set by the Sýn, as well as concerns regarding national security and critical infrastructure contributed to the decision to entrust Farice with the building of the new submarine cable. Finally, the proposition of Sýn was based on a different business model, not only for the purposes of the new cable but also Farice’s operation through the FARICE-1 and DANICE cables. Therefore, the business proposition of Sýn was not relevant for the purposes of the determination of proportionality of the aid measure. Consequently, the Icelandic authorities consider Measure 2 to be proportional.

(61)

Finally, as regards limited negative effects on competition, the Icelandic authorities note that the new infrastructure is principally expected to complement the other connections by providing enhanced security for international connectivity favouring the general public and general economic activities in Iceland. Therefore, the Icelandic authorities consider the IRIS cable to not have a material impact on competitiveness of other European markets compared to Iceland. As regards any negative effects the measure might have on the market for international data transfer or the related DC market, the Icelandic authorities consider those effects vastly outweighed by the positive effects of the measure.

3.6. ESA Decision No 023/21/COL

(62)

On 26 March 2021, ESA adopted Decision No 023/21/COL, concluding that Measure 2, i.e. the capital increase to finance the investment in the IRIS cable, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. However, as ESA found that no doubts were raised as to the compatibility of the measure with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, it decided not to raise objections to the implementation of the measure.

(63)

ESA noted that the compatibility of State aid for the introduction of broadband networks was normally assessed under the 2014 Broadband Guidelines. However, since the measure specifically targeted the security issues raised by the lack of geographical diversity, it fell outside the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines. ESA stated that it would nevertheless apply the principles of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines by analogy to the extent that they were relevant, because those guidelines were the most detailed guidance available for assessing the compatibility of State aid to broadband infrastructure projects with the EEA Agreement.

(64)

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that ESA may declare compatible „aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest“. Therefore, in order to declare aid compatible, first, the aid must be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and, second, the aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (34).

(65)

Under the first condition, ESA examines how the aid facilitates the development of certain economic activities or areas. Under the second condition, ESA weighs up the positive effects of the aid for the development of said activities or areas and the negative effects of the aid in terms of distortions of competition and adverse effects on trade (i.e. conducts a balancing test).

(66)

Concerning the first condition, ESA concluded that Measure 2 facilitated the development in the market for international data transfer services specifically and the markets for electronic communications services in general. Furthermore, ESA found that the selection of Farice, as owner and operator of the third cable, and the selection of a cable manufacturer and installer was exempted from the Icelandic Procurement Act. Further, ESA did not have reasons to believe that the measure was in breach of other relevant EEA provisions.

(67)

Concerning the second condition, ESA concluded that the amount of aid granted through Measure 2 was limited to what was necessary to achieve its objective and therefore proportional. ESA reached this conclusion, inter alia, on the basis that the aid amount was limited to the actual costs of the measure and subject to ex post control.

(68)

Furthermore, ESA concluded that Measure 2 would not have a material impact on the competitiveness of other EEA markets compared to Iceland, as investment in the IRIS cable was, in and of itself, unlikely to materially alter the dynamics of intra-EEA trade on the relevant market.

(69)

As regards the potential effect on the DC market, ESA noted that the data centre market was not a single market of universal services, since the digital needs of businesses were highly dependent on the applications hosted and operated in the data centres. ESA also noted that, while data centres might be more inclined to invest in projects in Iceland, due to extended capacity and security of the international connection network following the construction of a third cable, that was only one of multiple factors that would influence such a decision. Other factors, such as electricity prices, start-up costs and regulatory environment also influenced such decisions. ESA found that those factors were not altered by the measure.

(70)

Consequently, ESA found that the Icelandic authorities had demonstrated that the socio-economic benefits of Measure 2 outweighed any potential adverse effects on competition or trade between the Contracting Parties, given the safeguards in place to minimise such adverse effects.

3.7. EFTA Court Judgment in Case E-4/21

(71)

On 1 June 2022, the EFTA Court annulled ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL. The Court concluded that ESA should have opened a formal investigation procedure, as ESA had at its disposal information and evidence at the time, which should, objectively, have raised doubts or serious difficulties regarding whether the capital increase to finance the laying of the IRIS cable was compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(72)

In particular, the EFTA Court found that ESA was aware of documents that called into question the information at its disposal and on which it relied in the contested decision, without going beyond a mere examination of the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities. These documents related, inter alia, to Sýn’s complaint of 23 February 2022 and annexes thereto. Specifically, the Court noted a document comparing the proposals of Sýn and Farice, and an email dated 29 May 2020, regarding Sýn’s inability to confirm the prices of its proposal. By not obtaining further information on whether Sýn was actually able to confirm its prices, or whether it had been given that opportunity, the Court concluded that ESA failed to satisfy its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the notified measure so that it had at its disposal the most complete and reliable information.

(73)

Furthermore, the Court found that Sýn tried to enter the market for international connectivity services, according to the information available to ESA. Yet, in the contested decision, ESA did not consider factors such as potential competitors on the wholesale market for international connectivity, public consultation of stakeholders and entry barriers to that market.

(74)

Finally, the Court found that ESA did not adequately state its reasons for concluding that the notified measure fell outside the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, and that even though ESA stated in the contested decision that it would apply the guidelines by analogy, where relevant, the Court found little, if any, trace of the principles in the guidelines actually being applied.

(75)

On the basis of, inter alia, the above, the Court concluded that there was consistent and objective evidence that demonstrated that ESA adopted the contested decision despite the existence of doubts. Consequently, the Court annulled the Decision.

4. Presence of State aid

4.1. Introduction

(76)

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: „Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement“.

(77)

The qualification of a measure as aid within the meaning of this provision requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (i) the measure must be granted by the State or through State resources; (ii) it must confer an advantage on an undertaking; (iii) favour certain undertakings (selectivity); and (iv) threaten to distort competition and affect trade.

4.2. Measure 1

(78)

In the following chapters, ESA will assess whether the payments from the Fund to Farice for carrying out a seabed survey involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

4.2.1. State resources

(79)

According to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must be granted by the State or through State resources to constitute State aid.

(80)

The Fund has the task of promoting the development of telecommunications in Iceland. The Fund was formed in 2006 on the basis of Act No 132/2005 on the Telecommunication Fund. The main role of the Fund is to allocate funds to: projects aimed at the development of telecommunication infrastructure; projects that contribute to the safety and competitiveness of society in the field of electronic communications; and other telecommunication projects (35).

(81)

According to Article 1 of Act No 132/2005, the Fund is under the ownership of the Icelandic State and its administration falls under the authority of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation.

(82)

ESA therefore preliminarily concludes that the payments from the Fund to Farice for carrying out a seabed survey constitute State resources.

4.2.2. Advantage

(83)

According to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must confer an advantage upon an undertaking. An advantage, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, is any economic benefit which an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions (36), thus placing it in a more favourable position than its competitors (37).

(84)

The Icelandic authorities have argued that Measure 1 was concluded on market terms, in line with the market economy operator principle. In order to establish whether or not a transaction carried out by a public body is in line with normal market conditions, ESA will apply the market economy operator test („MEO test“), comparing the behaviour of the public body to that of similar private economic operators under normal market conditions (38).

(85)

In that respect, it is not relevant whether the intervention constitutes a rational means for the public bodies to pursue public policy considerations. Similarly, the profitability or unprofitability of the beneficiary is not in itself a decisive indicator for establishing whether or not the economic transaction in question is in line with market conditions. The decisive element is whether the public bodies acted as a market economy operator would have done in a similar situation (39).

(86)

Moreover, whether a State intervention is in line with market conditions must be examined on an ex ante basis, having regard to the information available at the time the intervention was decided upon. If a State argues that it acted as a market economy operator it must, where there is doubt, provide evidence showing that the decision to carry out the transaction was taken on the basis of economic evaluations comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator (with characteristics similar to those of the public body concerned) would have had carried out to determine the profitability or economic advantages of the transaction (40).

(87)

Concerning Measure 1, it is undisputed that the contractual provisions concerning the seabed survey and the payments for that survey were placed in the 2018 PSO Contract between the Fund and Farice, namely Article 1A, 12 and Annex 1. According to the Icelandic authorities, no other provisions of the 2018 PSO Contract applied to the seabed survey (41).

(88)

ESA notes that the Icelandic authorities essentially argue that Articles 1A, 12, and annex 1 of the 2018 PSO Contract do not, in fact, form part of that contract, but are instead a separate service contract made on market terms. This fact raises doubts as to whether the Fund was operating as a market economy operator, when it charged Farice with performing the seabed survey, since such operators would in general conclude clear and concise contracts when purchasing a similar service.

(89)

Indeed, it appears that the Fund contracted Farice to perform a service, without including in the contract any provisions concerning cost overruns, specifics regarding the scope of the survey, contingencies for failure to perform the obligations of the contract, or specifics regarding what costs could be covered by the service contract. According to documentation from and statements made by the Icelandic authorities, the temporal scope of the survey was later extended, and final costs ran over the cost estimate in annex 1.

(90)

Moreover, ESA has asked the Icelandic authorities to provide all documentation of expert evaluations or independent studies of the cost of carrying out the seabed survey, if any such evaluations or studies were carried out prior to the start of the 2018 PSO Contract. However, according to the Icelandic authorities, no such evaluation exists. Additionally, the Fund does not seem to have considered alternative providers. Therefore, ESA has doubts as to whether the Fund’s decision to carry out the transaction was taken on the basis of economic evaluations comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator would have taken, as it appears that the Fund committed to paying Farice for a service, without making an evaluation of eventual costs and alternative providers.

(91)

Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have stated that Farice did not de facto make a profit from performing the survey for the Fund. Moreover, it is unclear to ESA whether the Fund derived any economic value from its ownership of the survey results. In fact, since the survey forms part of the preparatory works for a submarine cable, which the Icelandic authorities themselves consider a security measure, it would appear that the purpose of the survey was not economic in nature. Therefore, ESA doubts that the Fund acted as an economic operator, since it rather seems to have been pursuing public policy aims when commissioning the survey.

(92)

Finally, as the Icelandic authorities have already stated that the payments to Farice for the performance of the subsea survey did not entail compensation for a public service obligation, ESA does not see the need at this time to specifically examine whether Measure 1 fulfils the Altmark criteria, or the provisions of the SGEI Decision or Framework.

(93)

Consequently, ESA has doubts whether Measure 1 was concluded on market terms and cannot exclude that an advantage may have been granted in favour of Farice. Accordingly, the Icelandic authorities are invited to comment on this and submit relevant evidence.

4.2.3. Selectivity

(94)

In order for a measure to involve State aid it must be selective in that it favours „certain undertakings or the production of certain goods“. Measure 1 concerns a contract between the Fund and Farice. Therefore, Farice is the only potential beneficiary. Other undertakings have not concluded similar contracts with the Fund or the Icelandic State. Accordingly, the alleged advantage of Measure 1 would be a selective advantage, as it only concerns one particular undertaking.

(95)

It is therefore ESA’s preliminary view that it cannot be excluded that a selective economic advantage was granted to Farice.

4.2.4. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

(96)

To qualify as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must be liable to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement. According to settled case-law, the mere fact that a measure strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is considered to be sufficient, in order to conclude that the measure is likely to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties (42).

(97)

The Icelandic authorities have argued that the measure in question did not distort or threaten to distort competition and did not have any effect on trade between the Contracting Parties, as the measure did not grant Farice a stronger competitive position than it would have had if the survey had not been undertaken. Moreover, they argue that Farice was not relieved of expenses it would otherwise have had to bear in the course of its day-to-day business operations. Therefore, the Icelandic authorities contend that the award of the seabed survey did not strengthen the position of Farice as compared with other undertakings, neither financially nor in other aspects.

(98)

On this point ESA notes that it is not obliged to establish the real effect of the aid on the market, but is only required to show that the aid is liable to distort competition and affect trade. Therefore, for all practical purposes, a distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is generally found to exist when the State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition (43).

(99)

Measure 1 concerns payments made to Farice for a seabed survey. The costs covered by those payments included subcontracting costs, as well as Farice’s overhead costs, including hourly rates for Farice staff and a general administration fee. Therefore, Measure 1 seems to have placed Farice in a better financial position than it would have been in the absence of Measure 1.

(100)

Moreover, there are multiple undertakings active in the EEA that provide seabed survey services. This is also demonstrated by the fact that Farice itself subcontracted a large portion of the survey.

(101)

Consequently, ESA has doubts as to whether it can be excluded that Measure 1 was liable to distort competition and affect trade within the EEA. The Icelandic authorities are invited to comment and submit relevant evidence on this.

4.2.5. Conclusion

(102)

In light of the above, ESA cannot exclude that Measure 1 entailed State aid.

4.3. Measure 2

(103)

It is uncontested between Sýn and the Icelandic authorities that Measure 2, i.e. the capital increase in Farice to facilitate the investment in the IRIS cable, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (44).

(104)

ESA therefore preliminary concludes that Measure 2 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

5. Aid scheme or individual aid

(105)

ESA notes that Measures 1 and 2 were not granted on the basis of a scheme (45). Measure 1, if found to be aid, would therefore be individual aid. Measure 2 constitutes individual aid.

6. Lawfulness of the aid

(106)

Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice („Protocol 3“): „The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. … The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision“.

(107)

The Icelandic authorities did not notify Measure 1 to ESA. ESA therefore concludes that, in the event that Measure 1 is deemed to involve aid, the Icelandic authorities have not respected their obligations under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3. In this event, Measure 1 would be unlawful aid.

(108)

The Icelandic authorities implemented Measure 2 after ESA approved it by Decision 023/21/COL. However, with the annulment of ESA’s approval decision by the EFTA Court, Measure 2 became unlawful.

7. Compatibility of the aid

7.1. Introduction

(109)

In derogation from the general prohibition of State aid laid down in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, aid may be declared compatible if it can benefit from one of the derogations enumerated in the Agreement.

(110)

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that ESA may declare compatible „aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest“. Therefore, in order to declare the aid compatible, first, the aid must be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and, second, the aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest (46).

(111)

7.2. Compatibility of Measure 1

(112)

The Icelandic authorities have maintained that Measure 1 does not constitute State aid (see Section 3.5.1). Further, they have also stated that despite the fact that the contractual obligations concerning Measure 1 were included in the 2018 PSO Contract between the Fund and Farice, the measure does not constitute compensation for a public service obligation.

(113)

Therefore, it would appear that the compatibility of Measure 1, should it be found to constitute aid, could not be examined under Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement and even if it were, ESA has doubts that the Measure 1 is in line with the provisions of the SGEI Decision or Framework. The Icelandic authorities have not, at this stage, brought forward any other arguments as regards the potential compatibility of the measure.

(114)

Therefore, following a preliminary assessment, ESA has doubts at this stage as to whether Measure 1 is compatible with the EEA Agreement. Consequently, ESA invites the Icelandic authorities to provide arguments and evidence to demonstrate that Measure 1 could be considered compatible under the EEA Agreement.

7.3. Compatibility of Measure 2

7.3.1. Introduction

(115)

The Icelandic authorities have invoked Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement as the basis for the assessment of the compatibility of Measure 2.

(116)

On this point, ESA notes that the compatibility of aid for the roll-out of broadband networks, for the purposes of securing coverage, access or connectivity, is normally assessed under the 2014 Broadband Guidelines. On 8 February 2023, ESA adopted new Broadband Guidelines („the 2023 Broadband Guidelines“) (47).

(117)

ESA will follow the principles and guidelines set out in the 2023 Broadband Guidelines for the compatibility assessment of all notified aid to broadband networks in respect of which it is called upon to take a decision after 8 February 2023 when the 2023 Broadband Guidelines entered into force. Unlawful aid to broadband networks will be assessed in accordance with the rules applicable on the date on which the aid was awarded (48).

(118)

The 2023 Broadband Guidelines were not in effect at the time when Measure 2 was enacted, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for the compatibility assessment of the measure. Therefore, ESA will apply the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, should Measure 2 be considered to fall within their scope. However, the 2023 Broadband Guidelines are based on existing case-law and decision-making practice of the European Commission. Therefore, the 2023 Broadband Guidelines could still be relevant, should Measure 2 fall under the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, provided they do not place stricter conditions on the beneficiary.

(119)

In general, the 2014 Broadband Guidelines’ primary objective is to ensure widespread availability of broadband services to end users or access to higher speed internet. The 2014 Broadband Guidelines state that „[t]hese guidelines summarise the principles of [ESA’s] policy in applying the State aid rules […] to measures that support the deployment of broadband networks in general (Section 2). They explain the application of these principles in the assessment of aid measures for the rapid roll-out of basic broadband and very high speed, next generation access (NGA) networks (in Section 3). [ESA] will apply the guidelines in the assessment of State aid for broadband“ (49). This objective has not changed with the adoption of the 2023 Broadband Guidelines, which state that „[t]hese Guidelines provide guidance on how ESA will assess […] the compatibility of State aid for the deployment and take-up of fixed and mobile broadband networks and services“ (50).

(120)

Therefore, the 2014 Broadband Guidelines apply to aid measures that target situations where the market does not provide sufficient broadband coverage or where access conditions are not adequate (51). Conversely, the 2014 Broadband Guidelines do not mention international connectivity, security, international data transfer, or subsea cables, and do not specifically lay down compatibility conditions for measures targeting security issues raised by the lack of geographical diversity and robustness of international connectivity services. Therefore, a measure like the one under assessment, where the objective is increased redundancy, security, and robustness of international connectivity services already available to end customers at high speeds, seems to differ from the general type of measure covered by the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, namely measures concerning the expansion or introduction of broadband networks and services.

(121)

ESA notes that the European Commission, in its Baltic Cable Decision (52), applied the 2014 Broadband Guidelines in its assessment. However, ESA also notes that the measure under assessment in that decision differed significantly from Measure 2. Specifically, it concerned capacity concerns caused by the expected dramatic increase in traffic that could not be supported by the existing infrastructure. Therefore, in addition to security benefits comparable to the ones present in the case at hand, the Baltic Sea Cable targeted (longterm) broadband availability specifically (53). Conversely, Measure 2 does not specifically concern broadband networks or availability.

(122)

However, in its judgment in Case E-4/21, when assessing ESA’s conclusion that Measure 2 fell outside the scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, the EFTA Court stated that the conclusion: „[…] is not supported by a sufficient analysis of the scope of application of the Broadband Guidelines. […] Although the contested decision states that ‚[t]he Broadband Guidelines’ primary objective is ensuring widespread availability of broadband services to end users or access to higher speed internet: ‘ and ‚[t]he particularities of the measure and investment at hand demonstrate that the Guidelines target different types of measures than the one under assessment‘, it fails to set out what impact these statements should have on the scope of application of the Broadband Guidelines. Accordingly, […] ESA encountered serious difficulties in its preliminary examination“ (54). The Court then further noted „that irrespective of whether the notified measure in the present case was outside of the scope of the Broadband Guidelines, those guidelines still may provide useful guidance on considerations that are relevant to the assessment of compatibility in general“ (55).

(123)

Consequently, ESA cannot conclude at this stage to what extent the 2014 Broadband Guidelines apply to the compatibility assessment of Measure 2, and therefore invites the Icelandic authorities to provide further arguments in this regard.

(124)

In the event that the Broadband Guidelines do not apply to the measure at hand, Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that ESA may declare compatible „aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest“. Therefore, in order to declare the aid compatible, first, the aid must be intended to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas and, second, the aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

(125)

7.3.2. Facilitation of development of certain economic activities or areas

7.3.2.1. Economic activities or areas supported

(126)

Under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in order to be considered compatible, a measure must contribute to the development of certain economic activities or areas.

(127)

The primary objective of the measure is to enhance security and reduce the vulnerability of international connectivity to and from Iceland by building a third submarine cable from Iceland to Europe. The secondary objective is to shorten the digital distance between Iceland and Europe allowing Icelandic people and businesses to make better use of international digital services available in Europe.

(128)

ESA generally considers the construction of a telecommunication infrastructure with a view to its future commercial exploitation to constitute an economic activity (56). Furthermore, the telecommunications market in general constitutes an economic activity. The measure facilitates development in the market for international data transfer services specifically and the markets for electronic communications services in general.

(129)

In view of the above, ESA preliminarily concludes that the measure constitutes aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, as required by Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

7.3.2.2. Incentive effect

(130)

State aid is only compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement if it has an incentive effect and so effectively facilitates the development of certain economic activities. To establish whether the measure has an incentive effect, it must be demonstrated that it changes the behaviour of the undertaking concerned in such a way that it engages in an activity which it would not carry out without the aid or which it would carry out in a restricted or different manner.

(131)

In Section 6.2.2 of ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL, ESA stated that Measure 2 had an incentive effect. ESA stated that: 1) Farice had historically proven to be unprofitable; 2) the operation of submarine cables in the region was generally unprofitable; 3) the investment in the IRIS cable was unlikely to achieve a profit; 4) the main objective of the cable was to provide enhanced security, which was an externality that did not heavily factor into investment decisions;) and 5) few stakeholders had signalled interest in operating submarine cables without State support in the past.

(132)

In light of this, ESA is generally inclined to conclude that Measure 2 had an incentive effect, as it incentivised Farice to make an investment it would not have entered into otherwise. However, the Icelandic authorities are invited to provide further information and reasoning on the incentive effect of the measure.

7.3.2.3. Compliance with relevant EEA law

(133)

The Icelandic authorities consider that the selection of Farice, as owner and operator of the IRIS cable, as well as the selection of cable manufacturer and installer, is exempt from the procurement rules, with reference to Article 10 of the Procurement Act (see also Article 8 of the Procurement Directive).

(134)

Specifically, Article 8 of the Procurement Directive states: „This Directive shall not apply to public contracts and design contests for the principal purpose of permitting the contracting authorities to provide or exploit public communications networks or to provide to the public one or more electronic communications services. For the purposes of this Article, ‚public communications network‘ and ‚electronic communications service‘ shall have the same meaning as in Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council“. Furthermore, ESA notes that in accordance with Article 2(m) of Directive 2002/12/EC, „provision of an electronic communications network“ means the establishment, operation, control or making available such network.

(135)

The primary objective of the measure in question is to increase security of international connectivity in Iceland by building a third submarine cable, which in turn will provide the public with more electronic communication services. Therefore, the investment in the submarine cable seems to permit Farice to „provide or exploit public communications networks“, as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC. However, ESA cannot conclusively conclude at this stage whether all conditions for the application of the exemption are fulfilled.

(136)

Moreover, according to paragraph 74(c) of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, „[w]henever the granting authorities select a third party operator to deploy and operate the subsidised infrastructure, the selection process shall be conducted in line with the spirit and the principles of the Public Procurement Directives. It ensures that there is transparency for all investors wishing to bid for the implementation and/or management of the subsidised project. Equal and non-discriminatory treatment of all bidders and objective evaluation criteria are indispensable conditions“.

(137)

However, despite this provision, footnote 91 to paragraph 74(c) states: „[t]he situation is different when the public authority decides to deploy and manage the network directly (or through a fully owned entity) […] In such cases, [..] (i) the publicly owned network operators shall limit their activity on the pre-defined target areas and shall not expand to other commercially attractive regions; (ii) the public authority shall limit its activity to maintain the passive infrastructure and to grant access to it, but shall not engage in competition on the retail levels with commercial operators and (iii) to have an accounting separation between the funds used for the operation of the networks and the other funds at the disposal of the public authority“.

(138)

Therefore, the applicability of procurement rules in the context of an assessment under the 2014 Broadband Guidelines seems to depend on whether or not the the conditions, listed in footnote 91, are fulfilled. The Icelandic authorities have not provided sufficient information in this regard.

(139)

Consequently, ESA has doubts as to whether or not Measure 2 falls under the exemption from procurement rules described above, and as to whether the provisions of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines have effect in this regard. Therefore, ESA invites the Icelandic authorities to provide further information and rationale in this regard.

7.3.3. Whether the aid adversely affects trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest

7.3.3.1. Introduction

(140)

ESA has not only identified positive effects of the planned aid for the development of the abovementioned economic activities and economic areas, but also possible negative effects that it may have in terms of distortions of competition and adverse effects on trade. These positive and negative effects must then be weighed up.

7.3.3.2. Markets affected by the aid

(141)

The measure mainly has an effect on the wholesale market for international connectivity and the telecommunication market, both national and international. Additionally, the measure may have an effect on the DC market.

7.3.4. Positive effects of the aid

(142)

Measure 2 contributes to the development of a submarine cable between Iceland and Europe, thereby enhancing both redundancy and the security of the submarine cable network that Iceland relies on to participate in the global economy. This is in line with the Icelandic Government’s Telecommunications Policy, whose objective is, inter alia, to promote accessible and effective communications and to guarantee the security of telecommunications infrastructures.

(143)

To achieve those objectives, the Icelandic authorities have emphasised that three active submarine telecommunications cables will connect Iceland with Europe from different landing sites. As a geographically remote country, effective international connections are a prerequisite for the development of Iceland as a modern technologically based society. A serious disruption in international connectivity would cause major damage to the Icelandic economy and society as a whole.

(144)

According to the Icelandic authorities, the main vulnerabilities of the current international connections relate to human error, malfunctions, accidents, natural disasters and other unforeseen events. The Icelandic authorities have provided ESA with a detailed description of the various and multiple disruptions that have happened in the past and disrupted the functionality of the two existing submarine cables (57). ESA considers these vulnerabilities both realistic and probable.

(145)

Furthermore, the absolute lengths of the submarine cables from Iceland to Europe increase the probability of incidents compared to shorter cables going from Scandinavia and the UK to mainland Europe. Moreover, other countries in the EEA are connected to major international network connection points via diversified networks of multiple land and/or submarine cables while Iceland is wholly dependent on only two submarine cables.

(146)

By implementing the measure and adding a third submarine cable to the network, the Icelandic authorities expect the security of international connectivity increases circa tenfold. In particular, a third submarine cable will: (i) increase the projected uptime to 99,9993 %, (ii) reduce the probability of a total outage in a 10-year period to 0,2–1,5 %, and (iii) diversify the land routes in Iceland, decreasing risks associated with a single route failure (58).

(147)

In addition to enhanced security, the Icelandic authorities contend that the addition of a third submarine cable will also improve the competitiveness of Iceland as whole, as the Icelandic digital market will become „closer“ to major network hubs in Europe. Data latency in communications between Iceland and Europe will be reduced as a result of shorted cable length and simpler network structure than is available through the current system connecting Reykjavík with Europe. ESA considers this factor positive, as it contributes to the development of the Icelandic economy as a whole.

7.3.4.1. Limited negative effects of the aid

7.3.4.1.1. Introduction

(148)

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement requires an assessment of any negative effects on competition and on trade. The aid must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

7.3.4.1.2. Necessity of the aid

(149)

To assess whether State aid is effective to achieve its objective, it is necessary to first identify the problem that needs to be addressed. A State aid measure is necessary if it is targeted towards situations where aid can bring about a material improvement that the market cannot deliver itself, for example by remedying a well-defined market failure.

(150)

A market failure exists if markets, left to their own devices, without intervention fail to deliver an efficient outcome for society. This may arise, for instance, when certain investments are not being undertaken even though the economic benefit for society exceeds the cost (59).

(151)

The Icelandic authorities have explained that Farice would not have undertaken the investment in the IRIS cable in the absence of aid, as it cannot support such an investment with its own funds. This, inter alia, is an indication of the market failure associated with providing international connectivity services in Iceland.

(152)

However, the fact that a specific company may not be capable of undertaking a project without aid does not mean that there is a market failure. For instance, the decision of a company not to invest in a project with low profitability or in a region with limited market demand and/or poor cost competitiveness may not be an indication of a market failure, but rather of a market that functions well (60).

(153)

Concerning the ability of the market to deliver an efficient outcome for society, the Icelandic authorities have pointed to the fact that Iceland was, prior to the IRIS cable project, only connected to Europe through two submarine cables. Furthermore, over the past decade, few stakeholders signalled interest in investing in international data connectivity services between Iceland and Europe or America. These projects did not materialise primarily due to problems with constructing a sound business case for such an investment. Furthermore, these planned and aborted projects by market actors would have been dependent on financial participation by the State (see paragraph (54)).

(154)

However, while it is a fact that no privately funded subsea cables from Iceland have been built in the last 10 years, it is also clear that Sýn approached the Icelandic State with plans to build a subsea cable. Negotiations and discussions between the State and Sýn continued over two years, but were then terminated. Therefore, while it is unclear to ESA whether Sýn’s offer was comparable to the IRIS cable project, or if it indicates an attempt to enter the market for international data connectivity services, ESA cannot exclude the possibility that the market could have delivered the outcome sought by Measure 2.

(155)

Consequently, ESA must preliminarily conclude that it has doubts as to the necessity of Measure 2. The Icelandic authorities are invited to provide further arguments and information relating to this point.

7.3.4.1.3. Appropriateness of the aid

(156)

EFTA States can make different choices with regard to policy instruments, and State aid control does not impose a single way to intervene in the economy. However, State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement can only be justified by the appropriateness of a particular instrument to contribute to the development of the targeted economic activities or areas.

(157)

ESA normally considers a measure appropriate where the EFTA State can demonstrate that alternative policy options would not be equally suitable, and that alternative, less distortive, aid instruments would not deliver equally efficient outcomes.

(158)

Due to the general unprofitability of submarine cable infrastructure investments and projects from Iceland to Europe, ESA is inclined to conclude that an alternative policy instrument, such as regulations, would neither trigger investment in the IRIS cable project, nor other similar investment projects. Further, ESA is equally inclined to conclude that a loan or guarantee would not be a more appropriate aid instrument (61).

(159)

Therefore, ESA preliminarily concludes that State aid in the form of a capital increase is the appropriate instrument to facilitate the development of the economic activities that the measure concerns. However, the Icelandic authorities are invited to elaborate on this point.

7.3.4.1.4. Proportionality of the aid

(160)

State aid is proportionate if the aid amount per beneficiary is limited to the minimum needed to incentivise the additional investment or activity in the area concerned.

(161)

Measure 2 constitutes a capital increase in Farice. The board of directors of Farice were authorised to increase the capital in intervals during the construction period of the new cable. The financing needs of the recipient were assessed at each interval and only established costs were granted through the capital increase. The granting authority reviews any expenses and controls overcompensation retroactively. This aid granting method and claw-back mechanism contributes to the proportionality of the aid. Moreover, when seeking subcontracting offers, Farice engaged in a competitive selection procedure whereby it selected a contractor who will manufacture and lay the IRIS cable. The selection procedure resulted in Farice opting to contract with the lowest bidder.

(162)

However, according to paragraph 74 of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, multiple conditions must be fulfilled in order to demonstrate the proportionality of a measure. Failure to meet any of those conditions would in most cases require a detailed assessment (62). These conditions include mapping an analysis of coverage, public consultation, and a competitive selection process.

(163)

ESA is not aware of any mapping analysis or public consultation performed by the Icelandic authorities prior to the implementation of Measure 2. Moreover, as Iceland selected an „in house entity“, namely Farice, to own and operate the infrastructure, it is clear that no competitive selection process was followed in relation to Measure 2. However, ESA notes that there is no need for a competitive selection process if the State chooses to manage a network directly (or through a wholly owned entity).

(164)

Nevertheless, where the aid is granted without a competitive selection procedure, to a public authority that deploys and manages a broadband network at wholesale level directly, or through an in-house entity, the State must justify its choice of network and technological solution.

(165)

Moreover, according to paragraph 74(d) of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, granting authorities should generally select the most economically advantageous offer. However, this only applies within the context of a competitive tender, and not when the State selects a wholly owned entity to own and operate the network.

(166)

As described in Section 3.1, the Icelandic authorities were approached by Sýn with an offer to build the third submarine cable, which following an examination by an independent expert, was considered to be cost effective than Farice’s offer. The Icelandic authorities have argued that the independent report was based on unconfirmed prices, and when asked to confirm prices, Sýn was unable to do so. Discussions between the Icelandic State and Sýn were terminated as a result. Sýn has argued that it was not given any time or opportunity to renew offers and provide confirmation on prices (63).

(167)

On this point, the EFTA Court stated that: „ESA has not touched upon this issue at all or disputed that it was aware of this information, as alleged by Sýn. ESA has merely reiterated that Sýn’s proposal relied on ‚unverified figures‘ without explaining why, if it considered that the figures were unverified, it did not seek to verify them by obtaining further information from Sýn, which had already submitted a complaint to ESA“ (64). The EFTA Court then concluded that „it must be held that Sýn has established that ESA was aware of documents that called into question the information at its disposal and on which it relied in the contested decision, without going beyond a mere examination of the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities. By not obtaining further information on whether Sýn was actually able to confirm its prices, or whether it had been given that opportunity, ESA failed to satisfy its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the notified measure so that it had at its disposal the most complete and reliable information“ (65).

(168)

Therefore, while the Icelandic authorities might not have been required to conduct a competitive tender, nor select the most economically advantageous offer, ESA must preliminarily conclude that the existence of an allegedly more economically viable offer from Sýn puts into doubt the proportionality of Measure 2, as the Icelandic authorities have not sufficiently explained the price differences between Sýn’s offer, and the eventual cost of the IRIS cable project.

(169)

Consequently, as ESA has doubts as regards the proportionality of Measure 2 and invites the Icelandic authorities to further elaborate on the proportionality of the measure, and, in particular, to provide arguments and information explaining the aid amount in comparison to Sýn’s allegedly more economical offer.

7.3.4.1.5. Limited negative effect on intra-EEA trade

(170)

As ESA preliminary considers Measure 2 to constitute State aid, the measure has an effect on intra-EEA trade. However, in order to be compatible, a measure should limit those effects.

(171)

As stated previously, the primary objective of the measure is to enhance the security of international connections in Iceland, and while a third submarine cable will increase capacity, ESA notes that the capacity of the current network is not fully utilised; the new infrastructure is principally expected to complement the other connections currently in operation. Therefore, the addition of a third cable does not materially alter the structure of the market for international connectivity, but rather enhances the security of the infrastructure already present.

(172)

Moreover, even though a third cable will allow Iceland to be better connected to Europe, it will not change the fact that Iceland remains an island approximately 1 200 km from the nearest European country and 2 000 km from the European continent. The improved communication to Iceland will not bridge the natural data latency gap that exists between communication on the European continent compared with communication from the continent to Iceland. Therefore, ESA finds it hard to see how the IRIS cable will have a material impact on the competitiveness of other EEA markets compared to Iceland. Therefore, the third cable, in and of itself, should not materially alter the dynamics of intra EEA-trade on the relevant market.

(173)

ESA notes that there are no other companies, established in the EEA, that currently operate, or have shown concrete plans to operate without State support, a submarine cable similar to the IRIS cable. Therefore, market participants have not to date demonstrated any concrete plans to invest in a submarine cable between Iceland and Europe prior to the implementation of the measure.

(174)

However, as mentioned in paragraph (54), one of the factors that lead to reduced investment in subsea cables from Iceland to Europe is the need to secure redundancy. An undertaking wishing to establish its own subsea cable network needs to build two cables, or secure redundancy using an existing cable. Since Farice is the only operator of subsea cables from Iceland to Europe, it is most likely that any possible new entrant would opt to secure redundancy through one of Farice’s exiting cables, in lieu of building two cables at once. ESA does not have information regarding whether Farice offers redundancy services. However, if Farice does not provide such services, it could call into question the limited negative effects of the measure on competition in general due to potential entry barriers.

(175)

Moreover, paragraph 74 of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines lists a number of conditions aimed at limiting distortion of competition and trade, including the need for detailed mapping and public consultation. Failure to comply with any of the conditions is likely to trigger the need for a detailed analysis by ESA. Therefore, regardless of the eventual scope of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, the apparent omission of the Icelandic authorities to comply with at least some of the conditions listed in paragraph 74 of the 2014 Broadband Guidelines when implementing Measure 2 leads ESA to doubt the overall limitation of negative effects on competition and trade.

7.3.4.1.6. Conclusion on limited negative effects

(176)

With reference to the foregoing, ESA has doubts that the effects of the measure on intra EEA-trade are sufficiently limited to a minimum. Therefore, ESA invites the Icelandic authorities to provide further arguments and information in this regard.

7.3.4.2. Balancing positive and negative effects of the aid

(177)

For the aid to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, the limited negative effects of the aid measure in terms of distortion of competition and adverse impact on trade between Contracting Parties must be outweighed by positive effects, in terms of contribution to the facilitation of the development of economic activities or areas. It must be verified that the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

(178)

As follows from the above, ESA is preliminarily inclined to conclude that Measure 2 has directly facilitated the economic activities of Farice and that is has had many positive effects.

(179)

However, in respect of the negative effects, ESA doubts whether the negative effects of Measure 2 on competition and trade are sufficiently limited. Specifically, ESA doubts whether the market failure addressed by the measure is clearly present, and whether the aid was on the whole proportional. Moreover, the effects of the measure on the markets it affects needs to be further examined.

(180)

At this stage, ESA therefore doubts that the positive effects of the measure outweigh its possible distortion of competition and adverse impact on trade.

8. Conclusion

(181)

As set out above, ESA has doubts as to whether Measure 1 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Further, if the measure is found to involve aid, ESA also has doubts as to whether the measure would be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(182)

Furthermore, ESA has doubts as to whether the Measure 2 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(183)

Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, ESA hereby opens the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of ESA, which may conclude that Measures 1 and 2 do not constitute State aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(184)

ESA, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments by 14 April 2023, and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the measures in light of the State aid rules.

(185)

The Icelandic authorities are requested to immediately forward a copy of this decision to the aid recipient.

(186)

The Icelandic authorities have confirmed that this opening decision does not contain any business secrets or other confidential information that should not be published.

(187)

Finally, ESA will inform interested parties by publishing a meaningful summary in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication. The comments will be communicated to the Icelandic authorities.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority,

Arne RØKSUND

President

Responsible College Member

Stefan BARRIGA

College Member

Árni Páll ÁRNASON

College Member

Melpo-Menie JOSÉPHIDÈS

Countersigning as Director,

Legal and Executive Affairs

(1) Rozsudok Súdu EZVO vo veci E-4/21 Sýn Eýn hf./Dozorný orgán EZVO [zatiaľ nezverejnený].

(2) Document No 1176447.

(3) Document No 1182556.

(4) „SGEI“ stands for „Services of General Economic Interest“.

(5) Document No 1182715.

(6) Document No 1189996.

(7) Document No 1192410.

(8) Document No 1256678.

(9) Document No 1276074.

(10) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority (not yet reported).

(11) Document No 1285878.

(12) Document No 1313840 and attachments.

(13) Document No 1326167.

(14) Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, and EEA Supplement No 43, 2.8.2012, p. 56).

(15) Document No 664512.

(16) EGS is an international group of companies with offices in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australia. EGS provides global specialist multi-disciplinary marine survey support, and delivers solutions to the Telecommunications, Renewables, Oil and Gas, Charting and Marine Infrastructure market sectors. See also http://www.egssurvey.com/.

(17) For a more detailed description of Measure 2, see Section 3 of ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL.

(18) In 2013–2018, Farice received public service compensation from the Fund for offering electronic communications connectivity between Iceland and Europe through FARICE-1 and DANICE. The last payment on this basis was made on 4 October 2018.

(19) The new IRIS cable will be based on an open cable architecture which means that customers can be given an access to the infrastructure by using their own terminal equipment. Access to infrastructure can be granted by own fibre pair or fractional fibre pair (spectrum). Furthermore, the technology to use the submarine cable is standardised and based on Ethernet, which is the technology commonly used. A more advanced interface in the form of OTU2, OTU3 and OTU4 is also offered.

(20) This refers to different surveys than those covered by Measure 1.

(21) See Farice press release dated 11 November 2022.

(22) Case No 86451.

(23) Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark, C-280/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415, paragraphs 87-93.

(24) Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, and EEA Supplement No 43, 2.8.2012, p. 56).

(25) Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ L 161, 13.6.2013, p. 12 and EEA Supplement No 34, 13.6.2013, p. 1).

(26) See the Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, paragraph 67.

(27) Cases 86220 and 86598.

(28) Case 86451.

(29) Document No 1276074, Section 6.1.

(30) ESA’s Guidelines on the application of the State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (OJ L 135, 8.5.2014, p. 49 and EEA Supplement No 27, 8.5.2014, p. 1).

(31) The Icelandic authorities mention specifically earlier interest shown by Emerald and Nordic Networks in 2010-2016, and proposals from Sýn, both independently and in collaboration with Celtic Norse AS, in 2018-2020. These proposals were all dependant on some kind of financial participation by the Icelandic State. For further information see Section 3.2.4 in ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL.

(32) The Act on Public Procurement No 120/2016.

(33) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65, and EEA Supplement No 73, 16.11.2017, p. 53).

(34) Judgment of 22 September 2020 in Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), C-594/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:742, paragraphs 18–20.

(35) https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/samgongur-og-fjarskipti/fjarskiptasjodur/.

(36) ESA’s Guidelines on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement („NoA“) (OJ L 342, 21.12.2017, p. 35 and EEA Supplement No 82, 21.12.2017, p. 1), paragraph 66.

(37) See for instance Judgment of 5 June 2012, Commission v EDF, C-124/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, paragraph 90; Judgment of 15 March 1994, Banco Exterior de España, C-387/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:100, paragraph 14; and Judgment of 19 May 1999, Italy v Commission, C-6/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:251, paragraph 16.

(38) NoA, Section 4.2.1.

(39) NoA, paragraph 76.

(40) NoA, paragraph 79.

(41) Document No 1313844.

(42) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] Ct. Rep. 76, paragraph 59, where it is stated that „[w]hen State financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid“.

(43) NoA, paragraph 187.

(44) The EFTA Court, in its judgment in Case E-4/21, did not suggest anything to the contrary.

(45) See Article 1(e) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice („Protocol 3“).

(46) Judgment of 22 September 2020, Austria v Commission (Hinkley Point C), C-594/18 P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:742, paragraphs 18–20.

(47) See ESA Decision No 004/23/COL amending the substantive rules in the field of State aid by introducing new Guidelines on State aid for broadband networks (not yet reported).

(48) Ibid, Article 1(2).

(49) See the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 4.

(50) See the 2023 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 14.

(51) See the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraphs 34–35. See also the pre-requisites for defining a service as an SGEI in paragraph 16.

(52) Commission Decision SA.36918 (Finland), Baltic Sea Backbone Cable (OJ C 422, 8.12.2017, p.1).

(53) Ibid, paragraph 91: „Thus, the measure facilitates the development of certain economic activities, i.e the provision of electronic communications services and networks, including the provision of international connectivity, and indirectly the provision of broadband services“. (emphasis added).

(54) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, paragraph 72.

(55) Ibid, paragraph 73.

(56) NoA, paragraphs 202 and 216, and the 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 7.

(57) See Section 3.2.3 of ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL for details.

(58) See ESA’s Decision No 023/21/COL, paragraph 22.

(59) See 2014 Broadband Guidelines, paragraph 33.

(60) See 2014 Broadband Guidelines, footnote 45.

(61) See ESA Decision No 023/21/COL, Section 6.3.4.3.

(62) Similar conditions can also be found in the 2023 Broadband Guidelines, Section 5.2.4.

(63) Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-4/21 Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority, paragraph 64.

(64) Ibid, paragraph 66.

(65) Ibid, paragraph 68.

13.4.2023

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 129/47

Uverejnenie žiadosti o schválenie podstatnej zmeny špecifikácie výrobku podľa článku 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny

(2023/C 129/05)

Týmto uverejnením sa poskytuje právo vzniesť námietku proti žiadosti o zmenu podľa článku 51 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 (1) do troch mesiacov od dátumu tohto uverejnenia.

ŽIADOSŤ O SCHVÁLENIE PODSTATNEJ ZMENY ŠPECIFIKÁCIE VÝROBKU S CHRÁNENÝM OZNAČENÍM PÔVODU ALEBO CHRÁNENÝM ZEMEPISNÝM OZNAČENÍM

Žiadosť o schválenie zmeny v súlade s článkom 53 ods. 2 prvým pododsekom nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1151/2012

„ALCACHOFA DE TUDELA“

EÚ č.: PGI-ES-0139-AM01 – 9.9.2021

CHOP ( )CHZO (X)

1. Skupina žiadateľov a oprávnený záujem

Consejo Regulador de la Indicación Geográfica Protegida „Alcachofa de Tudela“ (regulačná rada pre chránené zemepisné označenie „Alcachofa de Tudela“)

Avda. Serapio Huici, 22 Edificio Peritos

31610 Villava (Navarra)

ŠPANIELSKO

Tel. +34 948013045

E-mail: ajuanena@intiasa.es

Skupina žiadateľov zastupuje spoločné záujmy výrobcov výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“ a má oprávnený záujem o túto žiadosť o zmenu špecifikácie výrobku pre chránené zemepisné označenie „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Je to takisto skupina, ktorá pôvodne požiadala o ochranu pre tento výrobok.

Regulačná rada pre CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“ je združenie výrobcov, ktorí pracujú s výrobkom „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Ciele rady zahŕňajú zvýšenie hodnoty výrobku a zlepšenie výkonnosti systému CHZO v súlade s článkom 45 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1151/2012.

Rada je na základe uplatniteľných vnútroštátnych právnych predpisov poverená úlohou podporovať kvalitu výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“ a dohliadať na jeho dobrú povesť a chrániť ju. Odráža sa to v jej rokovacom poriadku, ktorý bol schválený uznesením Ministerstva poľnohospodárstva, rybárstva a potravinárstva z 30. mája 2001.

2. Členský štát alebo tretia krajina

Španielsko

3. Položky v špecifikácii výrobku, ktorých sa zmena týka

☐	Názov výrobku

☒	Opis výrobku

☒	Zemepisná oblasť

☒	Dôkaz o pôvode

☒	Spôsob výroby

☒

Súvislosť

☒	Označovanie

☒	Iné: I. Uplatniteľné vnútroštátne právne predpisy; G. Kontrolný orgán

4. Druh zmeny (zmien)

☒	Zmena špecifikácie výrobku s registrovaným CHOP alebo CHZO, ktorú nemožno považovať za nepodstatnú, v súlade s článkom 53 ods. 2 tretím pododsekom nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1151/2012.

☐	Zmena špecifikácie výrobku s registrovaným CHOP alebo CHZO, ktorú nemožno považovať za nepodstatnú v súlade s článkom 53 ods. 2 tretím pododsekom nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 a v prípade ktorej nebol uverejnený jednotný dokument (alebo rovnocenný dokument).

5. Zmena (zmeny)

5.1. Zmeny, ktoré ovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky

5.1.A.1.

V bode 11 „Opis výrobku“ špecifikácie výrobku sa po opise uvádzania artičok bez stoniek na trh doplnil tento text: „c) Artičoky pripravené na kuchynskú úpravu: Artičoky musia byť olúpané a zabalené tak, aby sa zachoval ich vzhľad a čerstvosť až do ich konzumácie.“

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Doplnila sa možnosť uvádzať na trh artičoky bez stoniek v olúpanej forme. Táto forma predaja umožňuje spotrebiteľom kúpiť si čerstvé artičoky pripravené na varenie. Mohlo by ísť o účinný spôsob, ako osloviť skupiny spotrebiteľov, ktorí nemajú čas alebo možnosť artičoky lúpať.

Uvádza sa, že artičoky sa musia baliť tak, aby si zachovali vzhľad a čerstvosť až do okamihu spotreby. V súčasnosti sú zvyčajne vákuovo balené v plastovom obale. Účelom však nie je vylúčiť prípadné použitie iných druhov neplastových obalov, ktoré sú v štádiu vývoja.

Tieto artičoky spĺňajú rovnaké požiadavky ako nelúpané artičoky, ktoré sa uvádzajú na trh ako čerstvý produkt. Sú medzistupňom medzi týmito a konzervovanými artičokami, na ktoré sa takisto vzťahuje CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Text „môžu sa predávať v dvoch formách“ sa zmenil na „môžu sa predávať v troch formách“, aby sa zahrnula aj táto tretia forma.

5.2. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky

5.2.A. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky oddielu B „Opis výrobku“ špecifikácie výrobku

5.2.A.1.

V štvrtom odseku opisu výrobku v špecifikácii výrobku sa slovo „majú“ zmenilo na „zvyčajne majú“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Cieľom tejto zmeny je objasniť, že v odseku sa uvádza všeobecný opis odrody Blanca de Tudela a nestanovujú sa v ňom žiadne obmedzenia, pokiaľ ide o veľkosť hlavičiek, ktoré sa môžu zbierať. Veľkosť hlavičiek sa počas celej sezóny zberu mení, pričom väčšie alebo menšie hlavičky sa zbierajú v závislosti od dopytu na trhu a poveternostných podmienok. Niektoré trhy uprednostňujú väčšie artičoky, kým iné trhy zas menšie artičoky, ktoré sa používajú na konzervovanie.

V každom prípade nie sú nikdy veľmi veľké. Pre túto odrodu je typické, že artičoky nie sú veľké, keďže rastlina po dosiahnutí priemernej veľkosti artičoky začína kvitnúť, čím sa artičoka stáva nevhodná na uvedenie na trh.

5.2.A.2.

V opise výrobku v špecifikácii výrobku sa zmenil desiaty odsek, ktorý sa týka prezentácie artičok uvádzaných na trh ako čerstvý produkt. Cieľom zmeny je objasniť tento odsek, nezavádzajú sa však žiadne nové obmedzenia.

Opis artičok so stonkami teraz znie takto „a) Artičoky so stonkami. – Hlavičky môžu mať stonku dlhú približne 18 cm aspoň s jedným alebo dvoma celými listami. Musia sa predávať po tuctoch.“ Doplnili sa slová „približne“ a „aspoň“ a vypustila sa posledná časť vety („tradičným spôsobom, konkrétne vo zväzkoch“).

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Touto zmenou sa nezavádzajú žiadne nové obmedzenia. Jej cieľom je skôr objasniť, že výrobok sa zvyčajne predáva so stonkou a listami. Hoci sa stonka ani listy nekonzumujú, výrobok sa tradične uvádza na trh spolu s nimi. Artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sa tradične predávajú v tuctoch, pričom každá artičoka má stonku dlhú približne 18 centimetrov. Keďže však dĺžka stonky nie je určujúca, pokiaľ ide o kvalitu výrobku, doplnilo sa slovo „približne“ v záujme poskytnutia väčšej voľnosti. Dĺžka stonky bude závisieť od toho, kedy počas sezóny sa uskutoční zber artičoky. Stonky sú dlhšie na začiatku sezóny a postupom sezóny sa skracujú, ako sa rastlina prirodzene vyvíja.

Prítomnosť listov je zas dôležitá, ak sa artičoky predávajú po tuctoch. Hoci sa listy zvyčajne nekonzumujú, keď ich artičoky majú, lepšie si zachovávajú čerstvosť. Je preto dôležité zdôrazniť, že čerstvé artičoky musia mať aspoň jeden alebo dva celé listy a že artičoky bez listov nie sú povolené. V záujme zohľadnenia tejto skutočnosti sa doplnilo slovo „aspoň“.

Časť „tradičným spôsobom, konkrétne vo zväzkoch“ sa vypustila, pretože nie je potrebné uvádzať artičoky na trh vo zväzkoch. Artičoky spravidla opúšťajú priestory registrovaných odbytových spoločností v balení, ktoré umožňuje ich bezpečnú prepravu bez ohrozenia kvality výrobku. Artičoky sa pôvodne uvádzali na trh vo zväzkoch, ale v súčasnosti sa zvyčajne zasielajú na trhy v debnách, keďže ide o lepší spôsob ich prepravy. Na mieste predaja sa predávajú v tuctoch, nie však nevyhnutne vo zväzkoch.

5.2.A.3.

V opise výrobku v špecifikácii výrobku sa zmenil jedenásty odsek, ktorý sa týka prezentácie artičok uvádzaných na trh ako čerstvý produkt. Cieľom zmeny je objasniť tento odsek, nezavádzajú sa však žiadne nové obmedzenia. Slovné spojenie „a nemá žiadne listy“ sa zmenilo na „a nemá žiadne vyvinuté listy“. Vypustila sa veta „Predávajú sa na kilogram“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Znenie sa zmenilo z „je obmedzená na“ na „je kratšia ako“, aby bolo jasné, že stonka musí byť kratšia ako 10 cm.

Malo by sa objasniť, že na rozdiel od artičok so stonkou, artičoky predávané v tejto forme nemajú vyvinuté listy. Tento výrobok sa spravidla predáva na váhu. Nemá vyvinuté listy. Znamená to, že artičoky majú často malé a nevyvinuté listy, ktoré sú súčasťou stonky (ktorá je kratšia ako 10 cm). Keďže sa artičoky predávajú so stonkou, tieto listy sa nedajú odstrániť bez toho, aby to nemalo vplyv na zachovanie artičok. Malo by sa objasniť, že hoci artičoky uvádzané na trh so stonkami nemôžu mať plne vyvinuté listy, nie je potrebné odstraňovať malé nevyvinuté listy, ktoré sú súčasťou stonky. Doplnil sa obrázok artičoky, ktorá má niekoľko vyvinutých listov, ako aj niekoľko malých nevyvinutých listov. Zámerom je ukázať, že nie je možné uskutočniť zber artičok a zachovať stonku v minimálnej dĺžke potrebnej na ich uchovanie bez toho, aby súčasťou stonky neboli aj nevyvinuté listy.

Vypustila sa veta „Predávajú sa na kilogram“, pretože sa v nej nestanovuje žiadna požiadavka. Táto veta bola uvedená v pôvodnej špecifikácii výrobku z dôvodu podobnosti artičok so stonkami a listami, ktoré sa uvádzajú na trh v tuctoch. Nie je však potrebné ponechať túto vetu, pretože artičoky sa takto bežne uvádzajú na trh.

5.2.B. Redakčné zmeny oddielu B „Opis výrobku“ špecifikácie výrobku

5.2.B.1.

Na konci štvrtého odseku opisu výrobku v špecifikácii výrobku sa vypustila veta „Jej chuť je výnimočná, a to aj vtedy, keď je artičoka zelená (t. j. čerstvá).“

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Vypustila sa veta „Jej chuť je výnimočná, a to aj vtedy, keď je artičoka zelená (t. j. čerstvá).“ Zjavným zámerom tejto vety bolo uviesť, že chuť neuvareného výrobku je výnimočná, keďže artičoky odrody Blanca de Tudela sú vždy zelené. Bolo by vhodnejšie vypustiť túto vetu, pretože je zavádzajúca a nestanovuje sa v nej žiadna požiadavka ani neopisuje žiadna osobitná vlastnosť.

5.2.B.2.

V špecifikácii výrobku sa vypustil piaty odsek, ktorý odkazuje na nariadenie (ES) č. 1466/2003, a v siedmom odseku sa vypustilo slovné spojene „v triede I“.

Dôvody tohto vypustenia: Odsek sa vypustil, pretože nariadenie, na ktoré odkazuje, bolo zrušené a v súčasnosti platnom nariadení, konkrétne v delegovanom nariadení Komisie (EÚ) 2019/428 z 12. júla 2018, sa nestanovujú žiadne komerčné triedy pre artičoky uvádzané na trh ako čerstvý produkt, a preto sa na základe neho nestanovujú komerčné triedy artičok.

Slovné spojenie „v triede I“ sa vypustilo, pretože, ako už bolo uvedené, klasifikácia vychádzala z právneho predpisu, ktorý už nie je platný.

5.2.B.3.

V oddiele „Opis výrobku“ špecifikácie výrobku sa na začiatku šiesteho odseku vložila veta „Artičoky uvádzané na trh ako čerstvý produkt“ v záujme lepšej zrozumiteľnosti textu.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Text sa zmenil v záujme zrozumiteľnosti, keďže sa vypustil predchádzajúci odsek, ktorý odkazoval na zrušené európske nariadenie. Vložila sa veta „Artičoky uvádzané na trh ako čerstvý produkt“, aby bolo jasné, že vlastnosti opísané v tomto odseku sa týkajú artičok uvádzaných na trh ako čerstvý produkt.

5.2.C. Redakčné zmeny oddielu C „Zemepisná oblasť“ špecifikácie výrobku

5.2.C.1.

V tomto oddiele špecifikácie výrobku sa vypustili všetky nesúvisiace informácie. Teraz sa v ňom uvádza len zoznam obcí, ktoré tvoria zemepisnú oblasť. Zmenila sa aj záverečná časť textu: „ten istý poľnohospodársky okres, konkrétne V alebo Ribera“ na „oblasť výroby“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Vypustil sa prvý odsek, v ktorom sa opisuje umiestnenie regiónu Navarra a okresy, ktoré ho tvoria. Teraz sa v texte uvádza len zoznam obcí, ktoré tvoria oblasť, na ktorú sa vzťahuje CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Zvyšnými informáciami sa žiadnym spôsobom nevymedzuje táto zemepisná oblasť.

Hoci sa zemepisná oblasť nezmenila, administratívne rozdelenie regiónu Navarra na poľnohospodárske okresy, ako sa uvádza v špecifikácii výrobku, už nie je rovnaké. Z textu sa preto vypustili všetky odkazy na poľnohospodárske okresy a teraz sa v ňom uvádza len zoznam obcí, ktoré spoločne tvoria vymedzenú zemepisnú oblasť.

Vypustil sa aj odsek, v ktorom sa opisuje rozloženie plodín vo vymedzenej oblasti, pretože rozloženie plodín sa z roka na rok mení a táto informácia nemá pre špecifikáciu výrobku žiadnu pridanú hodnotu.

Vypustila sa záverečná časť posledného odseku s cieľom odstrániť odkaz na poľnohospodárske okresy. V odseku sa teraz odkazuje na oblasť výroby. Ako už bolo uvedené, rozdelenie na okresy sa od uverejnenia špecifikácie výrobku zmenilo.

5.2.D. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky oddielu D „Dôkaz, že výrobok pochádza zo zemepisnej oblasti“ špecifikácie výrobku

5.2.D.1.

Oddiel D „Dôkaz, že výrobok pochádza zo zemepisnej oblasti“ sa zmenil v celom rozsahu. Vypustili sa všetky nesúvisiace informácie a text sa teraz zameriava na prvky, ktoré zaručujú vysledovateľnosť, pôvod a vlastnosti výrobku. Tieto vypustenia nemajú vplyv na kľúčové prvky.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Účelom tejto zmeny je len poskytnúť lepšie a presnejšie vysvetlenie toho, ako sa preukazuje, že výrobok pochádza z vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti a je v súlade s ostatnými požiadavkami stanovenými v špecifikácii výrobku.

Predchádzajúce znenie tohto oddielu špecifikácie výrobku bolo dosť neurčité a neposkytovalo jasný obraz o kontrolách a testoch vykonávaných kontrolným orgánom na zabezpečenie súladu so špecifikáciou výrobku.

Navrhované nové znenie obsahuje podrobnejšie vysvetlenie kontrol a testov, ktoré skutočne vykonáva inšpekčná kontrola ako súčasť certifikačného postupu, ktorý je v súlade s normou UNE-EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012 a bol akreditovaný vnútroštátnym akreditačným orgánom.

Uvádzajú sa v ňom aj podrobnosti týkajúce sa kontrolného systému, ktorý je založený na: kontrolách artičokových polí na mieste; kontrolách vykonávaných v spracovateľských závodoch; a odbere vzoriek a analýze počas spracovateľskej sezóny. Tento systém je doplnený o vlastné interné systémy kontroly vykonávané spracovateľskými závodmi. V texte sa teraz uvádzajú aj registre, v ktorých musia byť zapísaní prevádzkovatelia zapojení do výroby artičok s CHZO na účely vykonávania systému kontrol.

5.2.E. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky oddielu E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku

5.2.E.1.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa bez zmeny ponechala len prvá časť druhého odseku, v ktorej sa opisuje požiadavka na pestovanie výrobku ako jednoročnej plodiny. Zvyšná časť odseku sa vypustila, pretože je zbytočná.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Text sa vypustil, pretože sa v ňom nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky, pokiaľ ide o spôsob výroby. Uvádza sa v ňom, že tradične sa odporúča rotácia plodiny a že v prípade nevykonávania rotácie neboli pozorované žiadne problémy spôsobené opakovaným pestovaním rovnakej plodiny.

5.2.E.2.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ pôvodnej špecifikácie výrobky sa vypustila časť „Pôdy“, pretože sa v nej nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky na chránený výrobok.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Text sa vypustil, pretože sa v ňom nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky, pokiaľ ide o spôsob výroby. Regulačná rada neurčuje, ktorá pôda je vhodná na pestovanie. Výrobca nesie zodpovednosť za výber parciel s pôdnymi vlastnosťami, ktoré umožnia taký vývoj plodiny, aby hlavičky artičok spĺňali kvalitatívne vlastnosti požadované pre toto CHZO.

5.2.E.3.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ pôvodnej špecifikácie výrobku sa vypustila časť „Hnojenie“, pretože sa v nej nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky na chránený výrobok.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Text sa vypustil, pretože sa v ňom nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky, pokiaľ ide o spôsob výroby. V pôvodnom texte sa opisuje, ako sa aplikovali hnojivá v čase, keď bola vypracovaná špecifikácia výrobku, pričom sa odkazuje na normy, ktoré boli medzičasom zrušené. Rotácia plodiny aj používanie hnojív musia vychádzať z osvedčených poľnohospodárskych postupov a byť v súlade s toho času platnými právnymi predpismi. Keďže nejde o osobitné vlastnosti výroby výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“, ale o všeobecné požiadavky, nie je potrebné uvádzať ich v špecifikácii výrobku.

5.2.E.4.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa časť „Výsadba“ zmenila takto: vypustil sa text, v ktorom sa opisujú postupy pestovania artičok, pričom sa ponechali len rozhodujúce vlastnosti chráneného výrobku.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Odseky, v ktorých sa opisujú techniky hnojenia a prípravy riadkov na výsadbu, sa vypustili, pretože odkazujú na pestovateľské postupy, z ktorých sú niektoré zastarané a ktoré nie sú osobitné pre výrobky s CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Hustota výsadby a vzdialenosti medzi rastlinami a riadkami nemá zásadný vplyv na kvalitu plodiny, ale závisia od strojového zariadenia, ktoré má výrobca k dispozícii. Opis sa preto vypustil.

Vypustil sa odkaz na Inštitút poľnohospodárskej technológie a riadenia v Navarre ako na orgán zodpovedný za dohľad nad výberom rastlín. Išlo o verejnú spoločnosť, ktorá patrila pod vládu Navarry a už neexistuje. Za výber rastlín, ktoré sa ponechajú na vyprodukovanie spletí koreňov, sú odteraz zodpovední poľnohospodári, ktorí produkujú splete koreňov. Títo poľnohospodári si často prizývajú nezávislé tretie strany na osvedčenie správneho výberu rastliny.

Ponechal sa opis obdobia výsadby. Dátumy však neboli nijako obmedzené, pretože závisia od toho, kedy sa vysušila rastlina artičoky, kedy sa vybrali splete koreňov a kedy sú vhodné pôdne podmienky pre výsadbu.

5.2.E.5.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa vypustila časť „Starostlivosť“, pretože sa v nej nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky na chránený výrobok, ale opisuje sa v nej to, ako sa artičoky pestujú, a táto časť je čiastočne zastaraná.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Text sa vypustil, pretože sa v ňom nestanovujú požiadavky, ktoré sú osobitné pre výrobky s CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Opisujú sa v ňom len techniky používané v čase vypracovania špecifikácie výrobku. V súčasnosti sa burina na mnohých parcelách neodstraňuje. Namiesto toho je povolený kontrolovaný rast buriny s cieľom zabezpečiť pôdny porast a zabrániť odparovaniu vody. Alternatívne sa môžu použiť krycie materiály, aby sa potlačil rast buriny a obmedzila potreba používania herbicídov.

5.2.E.6.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa časť „Zavlažovanie“ zmenila takto: odseky, v ktorých sa nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky a len sa v nich opisuje vymedzená oblasť, sa vypustili a text sa vylepšil, aby bol zrozumiteľnejší.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: V texte sa teraz zdôrazňuje, že na pestovanie artičok sa vyžaduje zavlažovanie, pretože úhrn zrážok v oblasti výroby je nízky.

Text, v ktorom sa opisujú zavlažovacie techniky, sa vypustil, pretože je všeobecný vzhľadom na skutočnosť, že najvhodnejšie zavlažovacie techniky budú závisieť od poveternostných podmienok v každej fáze pestovania.

Text týkajúci sa zavlažovania druhoročných polí sa vypustil, pretože aj to závisí od poveternostných podmienok v každej fáze pestovania.

5.2.E.7.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa vypustila časť „Ošetrenie“.

Dôvody tohto vypustenia: Tento text sa vypustil, pretože odkazuje na fytosanitárne ošetrenia, ktoré sa používali v čase vypracovania pôvodnej špecifikácie výrobku a niektoré z nich sú teraz zakázané. V európskych právnych predpisoch sa stanovujú obmedzenia týkajúce sa fytosanitárnych ošetrení a pri mnohých výrobkoch s CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sa začínajú používať ekologické ošetrenia. Nemá preto veľký zmysel spomínať fytosanitárne ošetrenia, keďže tieto sa môžu medzičasom meniť a v súvislosti s nimi neexistujú žiadne osobitné požiadavky pre výrobky s CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

5.2.E.8.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zber“ vypustili časti textu, pretože predstavujú všeobecné opisy pestovania artičok. Ponechali sa len požiadavky, ktoré sa konkrétne týkajú chráneného výrobku.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Odsek, ktorý odkazuje na optimálny vývoj hlavičiek artičok sa vypustil, pretože ide o všeobecný opis, ktorý platí pre všetky artičoky, a nestanovujú sa ním žiadne osobitné požiadavky, ktoré by mali byť súčasťou špecifikácie výrobku.

Odseky, v ktorých sa odkazuje na obdobia zberu a zamýšľané použitia zozberaných artičok, sa vypustili. Zber začína, keď sú na rastline plne vyvinuté artičoky. Čas, kedy k tomu dochádza, sa výrazne líši v závislosti od počasia na jeseň a od zimných mrazov, pretože zber artičok na certifikáciu sa môže začať až potom, ako skončia mrazy.

Účel použitia zozberaných artičok závisí od dopytu na trhu. Zvyčajne má prednosť trh s čerstvými produktmi. Ak nie je schopný absorbovať všetky vypestované artičoky, smerujú na trh s konzervovanými výrobkami, na ktorom sú ceny o niečo nižšie.

V odseku sa zmenili dve slová s cieľom vylepšiť jeho znenie: slovo „odstránené“ sa zmenilo na „odrezané“, pretože artičoky sa zbierajú nožom, a slovo „denne“ sa zmenilo na „neustále“, pretože zber sa na poliach neuskutočňuje každý deň; v dôsledku poveternostných podmienok sa môžu artičoky vyvinúť rýchlejšie alebo pomalšie, preto je nevyhnutné frekvenciu zberu zvyšovať alebo znižovať.

5.2.E.9.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobky sa zmenilo znenie časti „Vytrhávanie rastlín“ tak, že sa vypustil zbytočný text a zdôraznili sa osobitné požiadavky, ktoré platia pre výrobky „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Táto časť sa zmenila, aby sa zdôraznilo, že splete koreňov vysadené v rámci CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“ musia pochádzať z parciel, na ktorých sa artičoky pestujú ako jednoročná plodina, nie ako dvojročná plodina.

Vložil sa odkaz na mesiac júl, pretože výsadba sa uskutočňuje v júli a v auguste.

Opis pestovania splete koreňov sa vypustil, pretože ide o proces, na ktorý sa špecifikácia výrobku nevzťahuje.

5.2.E.10.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa zmenil nadpis a znenie časti „Prezentácia výrobku na predaj ako čerstvého produktu“, aby sa kládol väčší dôraz na vlastnosti chráneného výrobku, a vypustili sa odseky, v ktorých sa nestanovujú rozhodujúce požiadavky týkajúce sa vlastností výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: V texte sa teraz zdôrazňuje, že artičoky musia pochádzať z registrovaných parciel a musia byť odrody Blanca de Tudela. Ide o rozhodujúce vlastnosti chráneného výrobku.

Vymedzenie povolených druhov balení sa vypustilo a prevádzkovatelia sa môžu slobodne rozhodnúť, ktorý druh balenia použijú na uvedenie artičok na trh. Kontrolný orgán musia teraz informovať o balení, ktoré používajú. Keďže teraz sa artičoky predávajú ako čerstvý produkt v supermarketoch, dopyt je po menších predajných jednotkách v porovnaní s jednotkami používanými na uvádzanie artičok na trh v čase vypracovania špecifikácie výrobku. Balenie sa nepovažuje za osobitnú vlastnosť čerstvých artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

V texte sa teraz uvádza požiadavka, že v prípade konzervovaných artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sa do artičok uvádzaných na trh ako čerstvý produkt nesmú pridávať okysľovadlá.

Požiadavka týkajúca sa veľkosti sa nezmenila.

5.2.E.11.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ zmenil prvý odsek takto: vložilo sa číslovanie, aby bol text koherentnejší, a vypustil sa odkaz na „oddiel B“, pretože sa v ňom nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: V nadpise sa vložilo číslovanie a vypustil sa odkaz na „oddiel B“, pretože sa v ňom nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky.

V texte sa teraz uvádza, že sa môžu používať len produkty „triedy extra“ a „triedy I“. Tradične nie je povolené používať produkty „triedy II“ na produkciu chráneného konzervovaného výrobku. Do špecifikácie výrobku sa preto vložila požiadavka v tomto zmysle.

5.2.E.12.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ zmenil druhý odsek takto: vložilo sa číslovanie, zmenila sa štruktúra textu, aby bol koherentnejší, a vypustil sa všetok text, v ktorom sa nestanovujú žiadne požiadavky.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Štruktúra tejto časti sa zmenila, aby sa oddelili rôzne fázy výroby chráneného výrobku. V texte sa teraz zdôrazňuje, že surovina musí pochádzať z registrovaných parciel a musí byť z chráneného kultivaru. Odkaz na komerčnú triedu čerstvých artičok, ktorý sa vypustil v príslušnom oddiele, sa vypustil aj tu. Dôvodom tejto zmeny je zrušenie právneho predpisu, ktorým sa vymedzuje „trieda I“ pre artičoky uvádzané na trh ako čerstvý produkt.

5.2.E.13.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ vypustil tretí odsek.

Dôvody tohto vypustenia: V dôsledku zmeny štruktúry tohto oddielu stráca tento odsek význam. Požiadavky na sterilizáciu sa vysvetľujú ďalej v texte.

5.2.E.14.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ zmenila štruktúra štvrtého odseku takto: rozdelil sa na dve časti.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Zmenila sa len štruktúra odsekov. Nevložili sa žiadne nové informácie. Pôvodný odsek sa rozdelil na dva odseky, pretože opisuje dve fázy pri spracovaní konzervovaného výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“: umývanie a blanšírovanie.

5.2.E.15.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ zmenila štruktúra piateho odseku takto: rozdelil sa na dve časti.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Zmenila sa štruktúra tohto odseku, ale odsek stále obsahuje pôvodné informácie. Teraz sa v ňom objasňuje, že veľkosť artičok sa meria na základe priemeru srdca artičoky. Pôvodný odsek sa rozdelil na dva odseky, pretože opisuje dve fázy pri spracovaní konzervovaného výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“: meranie veľkosti a krájanie.

5.2.E.16.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ zmenila štruktúra šiesteho odseku takto: rozdelil sa na dve časti. Zmenila sa časť textu s cieľom zdôrazniť požiadavky na výrobky s CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Odôvodnenie týchto zmien: Zmenila sa štruktúra. Časť, ktorá sa týka balenia a pridávania konzervačnej tekutiny, sa oddelila od časti týkajúcej sa predhrievania, pretože ide o dve odlišné fázy v procese výroby konzervovaného výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“. V časti o balení sa zdôrazňuje, že výrobok nesmie obsahovať okysľovadlá ani regulátory kyslosti, pretože ich absencia je vlastnosťou chráneného výrobku. V texte sa teraz zdôrazňuje, že nádoba musí byť vyrobená zo skla, a zároveň sa uvádza, že proces predhrievania nie je povinný.

Predhrievaním sa z nádoby účinnejšie odstraňuje zachytený vzduch, ak však v čase medzi balením výrobku a uzavretím a sterilizáciou nádoby ubehne dlhý čas, vzhľadom na súvisiace mikrobiologické riziko je lepšie nezvyšovať teplotu výrobku. Predhrievaním by sa nádoby udržiavali v teple dostatočne dlho na rast termofilných mikroorganizmov, čo by následne spôsobilo kazenie výrobku.

5.2.E.17.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti „Zavárané artičoky“ zmenila štruktúra siedmeho odseku takto: rozdelil sa na dve časti. Rozšírilo sa vymedzenie pojmu „sterilizácia“, aby bolo zrozumiteľnejšie.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Rovnaká štruktúra sa používa v predchádzajúcich odsekoch. V texte sa teraz uvádza požiadavka, že tepelné spracovanie musí byť dostatočné na to, aby sa zabezpečila sterilita konzervovaného výrobku na účely uvedenia na trh. To sa už vyžaduje podľa súčasných certifikačných postupov. Namiesto stanovenia teplôt, ako to bolo v pôvodnej špecifikácii výrobku, by bolo vhodnejšie povoliť spracovateľom, aby sa rozhodli, ktorú formu tepelného spracovania použijú v prípade konzervovaných výrobkov. V pôvodnej špecifikácii výrobku sa uvádza, že teplota pre sterilizáciu je v rozpätí od 115 °C do 121 °C. Hoci v prípade sterilizácie konzervovaných artičok ide o bežné teplotné rozpätie, v budúcnosti môžu byť k dispozícii nové kvasné nádoby, ktoré ponúkajú vhodnejšie a menej energeticky náročné spôsoby úpravy, ktorými sa konzervuje zachovaná štruktúra výrobku, ako sa to vyžaduje v prípade chráneného označenia.

5.2.E.18.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v tabuľke o konzervovaných artičokách „Alcachofa de Tudela“ vypustil stĺpec, v ktorom sa vymedzuje „trieda II“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Požiadavky týkajúce sa komerčnej triedy „trieda II“ sa z tabuľky vypustili, pretože CHZO sa nevzťahuje na túto triedu a uvádzanie tejto triedy by mohlo vyvolávať nejasnosti.

5.2.E.19.

V oddiele E „Spôsob výroby“ špecifikácie výrobku sa rozšíril bod 2 opisu jednotnosti veľkosti, aby bol zrozumiteľnejší.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Srdce sa považuje za najcennejšiu časť artičoky, pričom artičoky s veľmi veľkými listeňami sa považujú za artičoky horšej kvality ako artičoky s menšími listeňmi, pretože pri spracovaní sŕdc artičok sa odstránilo menej listeňov. Preto sa teraz v texte zdôrazňuje, že jednotnosť sa meria posúdením jednotnosti dĺžky listeňov. Meranie sa uskutočňuje tak ako predtým, konkrétne výberom 20 % artičok s dlhšími listeňmi a 20 % artičok s kratšími listeňami a vyjadrením výsledku ako pomeru medzi nimi.

5.2.F. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky oddielu F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku

Nasledujúce zmeny sa týkajú najmä vypustenia odsekov, ktoré sú súčasťou oddielu „Súvislosť“, ale nemajú vplyv na kľúčové prvky ani neovplyvňujú povahu súvislosti.

5.2.F.1.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 1 „Historické súvislosti“ vypustili prvé tri odseky.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Tieto odseky sa vypustili, pretože sa v nich neuvádzajú žiadne osobitné informácie o výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“, ale skôr sa v nich opisuje zavlažovanie v regióne Navarra.

5.2.F.2.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 2 „Prírodné súvislosti“ vypustil odkaz na mapy 2 a 5, keďže už nie sú zahrnuté ako prílohy, pričom znenie tejto časti sa zmenilo tak, aby odkazovalo len na vymedzenú oblasť.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Odkaz na tieto dve mapy sa vypustil a v texte sa teraz opisuje len vymedzená oblasť. Mapy uvedené v pôvodnej špecifikácii výrobku sú staré, ich rozlíšenie je nízke a nedopĺňajú špecifikáciu výrobku o žiadne informácie.

5.2.F.3.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 2 „Prírodné súvislosti“ písmene b) „Pôdy“ bode 1 „Geológia a litológia“ vypustil odkaz na mapu 5, keďže už nie je súčasťou prílohy.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Vypustil sa odkaz na mapy. Mapy uvedené v pôvodnej špecifikácii výrobku sú staré, ich rozlíšenie je nízke a nedopĺňajú špecifikáciu výrobku o žiadne informácie.

5.2.F.4.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 2 „Prírodné súvislosti“ písmene b) „Pôdy“ bode 2 „Pôdne vlastnosti“ vypustilo prvých päť odsekov.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Tieto odseky sa vypustili, pretože sa v nich neopisujú pôdne vlastnosti pôd vo vymedzenej oblasti, ale všeobecná klasifikácia pôdy. Odkazy na mapy sa opäť vypustili z dôvodov vysvetlených v predchádzajúcom texte, konkrétne z dôvodu, že tieto mapy už nie sú zahrnuté do príloh.

5.2.F.5.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 2 „Prírodné súvislosti“ písmene c) „Podnebie“ vypustili posledné štyri odseky a odkaz na mapu 8.

Dôvody tohto vypustenia: Odkaz na mapy sa vypustil, pretože už nie sú súčasťou špecifikácie výrobku. Vypustili sa aj odseky, v ktorých sa opisuje podnebie na základe plodín, ktoré by sa mohli pestovať, pretože sú všeobecné. Zaoberajú sa potenciálom pestovať iné plodiny ako artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“, t. j. plodinu, ktorá je predmetom špecifikácie výrobku.

5.2.F.6.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 2 „Prírodné súvislosti“ písmene d) „Hydrografia“ vypustili niektoré odseky a odkaz na mapu 11.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Z časti, v ktorej sa opisuje hydrografia, sa vypustili odseky, ktorých predmetom je hospodárenie s vodnými zdrojmi, pretože nie sú relevantné, pokiaľ ide o vlastnosti výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Odkaz na mapu 11 sa vypustil, pretože už nie je zahrnutá do prílohy, keďže ide o starú mapu, ktorá neposkytovala žiadne informácie.

5.2.F.7.

V oddiele F „Súvislosť“ špecifikácie výrobku sa v časti 2 „Prírodné súvislosti“ vypustilo písmeno e) „Flóra a prírodné lúky“.

Dôvody tohto vypustenia: Vypustila sa časť o flóre a prírodných lúkach. Hoci sa v nej uvádza podrobný opis flóry a prírodných lúk nachádzajúcich sa vo vymedzenej oblasti, nevzťahuje sa na žiadne osobitné vlastnosti výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

5.2.G. Redakčné zmeny oddielu G „Kontrolný orgán“ špecifikácie výrobku

Pôvodný text v oddiele „Kontrolný orgán“ sa úplne zmenil: všetky nesúvisiace informácie sa vypustili a aktualizovali sa informácie o kontrolnom orgáne.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: V predchádzajúcej verzii špecifikácie výrobku obsahoval oddiel „Kontrolný orgán“ informácie, ktoré nie sú relevantné v tejto súvislosti, konkrétne opis štruktúry, právomoci a povinnosti riadiaceho orgánu pre CHZO, ako sú ustanovené vo vnútroštátnych právnych predpisoch. Tieto informácie sa vypustili a nahradili informáciami o kontrolnom orgáne, ktorý kontroluje dodržiavanie špecifikácie výrobku v súlade s článkom 37 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 z 21. novembra 2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny.

5.2.H. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky oddielu H „Označovanie“ špecifikácie výrobku

5.2.H.1.

V oddiele „Označovanie“ špecifikácie výrobku sa vypustili prvé dva body.

Dôvody tohto vypustenia: Tieto dva body sa vypustili z toho dôvodu, že sa v nich neuvádzajú žiadne dodatočné informácie a mohli by spôsobiť nesprávny výklad. Na certifikáciu artičok sa môžu použiť dva rôzne prvky, konkrétne certifikačná etiketa a páska, pričom oba tieto prvky sú očíslované a vydáva ich regulačná rada. Opisujú sa ďalej v texte.

5.2.H.2.

V oddiele „Označovanie“ špecifikácie výrobku sa tretí bod zmenil takto: posledná veta sa vypustila a do prvej vety sa vložili slová „alebo pásky“.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Ako sa uvádza v predchádzajúcom odseku, na všetkých baleniach výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“, či už ide o čerstvé alebo konzervované artičoky, sa musí nachádzať buď páska, alebo certifikačná etiketa, a preto sa vložili slová „alebo pásky“. Posledná veta sa vypustila, keďže nič neprináša. Je zjavné, že artičoky, ktoré nie sú označené certifikačnou etiketou ani páskou, nie sú certifikované výrobky.

5.2.H.3.

V oddiele „Označovanie“ špecifikácie výrobku sa zmenil štvrtý a piaty bod. V štvrtom bode sa vypustila posledná veta a znenie piateho bodu sa zmenilo, keďže neodzrkadľuje súčasný systém certifikácie.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Posledná časť štvrtého bodu sa vypustila, pretože odkazuje na koncepty, ktoré súčasný systém certifikácie nepoužíva, ako je povoľovanie zariadení a vylúčenie výrobku regulačnou radou. Regulačná rada nenesie zodpovednosť za povoľovanie registrovaných zariadení, ani za vylúčenie a zahrnutie výrobku. Rozhodnutia o vylúčení/zahrnutí prijíma registrovaný prevádzkovateľ. V texte sa naďalej uvádza, že označovanie sa musí uskutočňovať v registrovaných zariadeniach. Aby zariadenie bolo registrované, musí prejsť kontrolami a byť certifikované ako závod na spracovanie výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“ alebo ako zariadenie na jeho uvádzanie na trh, ako sa uvádza v oddiele „Kontroly“.

Aj z tohto dôvodu sa vypustila požiadavka, ktorá sa týka povoľovania komerčných etikiet regulačnou radou. Namiesto toho sa v texte teraz uvádza, že etikety sa musia predkladať na registráciu regulačnej rade. Hoci regulačná rada nepovoľuje komerčné etikety, musí zaregistrovať všetky etikety, pri ktorých sa používajú dané označenia. Tento odsek sa preto zmenil tak, aby sa v ňom uvádzalo, že etikety sa musia predkladať regulačnej rade. Počas registračného procesu môže byť žiadosť o povolenie používať logo CHZO zamietnutá v prípade, že by etikety mohli spotrebiteľov uviesť do omylu.

Napokon sa vypustil odsek, v ktorom sa spomína odmietnutie regulačnej rady schváliť etikety, pretože podľa súčasných právnych predpisov nie je regulačná rada zodpovedná za schvaľovanie či zamietnutie etikiet.

5.2.H.5.

V oddiele „Označovanie“ špecifikácie výrobku sa posledný bod zmenil takto: aj tu sa vložili slová „a pásky“ a do textu sa vložil grafický návrh, keďže sa neuvádza v prílohe (ako to bolo v prípade pôvodnej špecifikácie výrobku).

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Opäť sa vložili slová „a pásky“, pretože certifikačnými prvkami sú certifikačná etiketa uvedená v pôvodnom texte a páska.

Do hlavného dokumentu sa vložil grafický návrh loga, certifikačnej etikety a pásky namiesto toho, aby sa uvádzal v prílohe.

5.2.I. Zmeny, ktoré neovplyvňujú kľúčové prvky oddielu I, „Uplatniteľné vnútroštátne právne predpisy“ špecifikácie výrobku

Vypustili sa odkazy na zrušené vnútroštátne právne predpisy. Vložil sa odkaz na právny predpis o kvalitatívnych normách týkajúcich sa konzervovanej zeleniny, ktorý je relevantný vzhľadom na skutočnosť, že sa v ňom ustanovujú komerčné triedy konzervovaných čerstvých produktov.

Odôvodnenie tejto zmeny: Všetky právne predpisy uvedené v prechádzajúcom zozname boli zrušené.

Hoci sa podľa nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 z 21. novembra 2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny už nevyžaduje, aby špecifikácie výrobku obsahovali tento oddiel o uplatniteľných vnútroštátnych právnych predpisoch, ponechal sa s cieľom zachovať odkaz na nariadenie Úradu predsedu vlády z 21. novembra 1984, ktorým sa schvaľujú kvalitatívne normy týkajúce sa konzervovania čerstvých produktov, keďže ide o právny predpis, ktorý sa osobitne vzťahuje na konzervované artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

JEDNOTNÝ DOKUMENT

„ALCACHOFA DE TUDELA“

EÚ č.: PGI-ES-0139-AM01 – 9.9.2021

CHOP ( )CHZO (X)

1. Názov [CHOP alebo CHZO]

„Alcachofa de Tudela“

2. Členský štát alebo tretia krajina

Španielsko

3. Opis poľnohospodárskeho výrobku alebo potraviny

3.1. Druh výrobku

Trieda 1.6. Ovocie, zelenina a obilniny v pôvodnom stave alebo spracované

3.2. Opis výrobku, na ktorý sa vzťahuje názov uvedený v bode 1

Artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sa získavajú z artičok kultivaru Blanca de Tudela pestovaných na registrovaných plantážach.

Artičoky sú hlavičky kvetu druhu Cynara scolymus L. odrody Blanca de Tudela. Sú dobre sformované, zelené a majú okrúhly, mierne elipsovitý tvar, ktorý je typický pre túto odrodu.

Výrobok „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sa môže ponúkať takto:

—	ako čerstvý produkt, buď so stonkou (ak sa uvádza na trh so stonkou dlhou približne 18 cm), alebo bez stonky (ak je stonka kratšia ako 10 cm),

—	ako produkt pripravený na kuchynskú úpravu, ak je olúpaný a zabalený tak, aby sa zachovala jeho čerstvosť,

—	ako konzervovaný výrobok, buď ako srdcia artičok alebo polovice artičok, a to bez okysľovania. Konečné pH konzervovaného výrobku musí byť vyššie ako 5,0.

3.3. Krmivo (len pri výrobkoch živočíšneho pôvodu) a suroviny (len pri spracovaných výrobkoch)

Surovinou na výrobu výrobku „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sú artičoky odrody Blanca de Tudela pochádzajúce výlučne z vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti. Ako čerstvý produkt sa môžu na trh uvádzať len artičoky pestované ako jednoročná plodina, pričom na výrobu konzervovaného výrobku sa môžu použiť artičoky pestované ako jednoročná aj ako dvojročná plodina.

Artičoky, ktoré sa majú predávať ako čerstvý produkt, musia byť v celku, v dobrom stave, byť bez poškodení spôsobených chorobami alebo škodcami, byť čisté a bez cudzieho zápachu či chuti.

Artičoky pripravené na kuchynskú úpravu musia byť olúpané a zabalené tak, aby sa zachovala ich čerstvosť. Musia mať podobné vlastnosti ako artičoky určené na konzumáciu ako čerstvý produkt.

Konzervované artičoky musia byť produkty „triedy extra“ alebo „triedy I“ zabalené v sklenej nádobe bez pridaných okysľovadiel a musia byť tepelne sterilizované. Môžu sa predávať v celku alebo polené.

3.4. Špecifické kroky výroby, ktoré sa musia uskutočniť vo vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti

Plantáže, na ktorých sa pestujú artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“, sa musia nachádzať v 33 vymedzených obciach.

Sklady a priemyselné zariadenia, v ktorých sa pripravuje konzervovaný výrobok a balí čerstvý výrobok alebo výrobok pripravený na kuchynskú úpravu, sa musia nachádzať v regióne Navarra.

3.5. Špecifické pravidlá krájania, strúhania, balenia atď. výrobku, na ktorý sa vzťahuje registrovaný názov

Obsah každého balenia čerstvých artičok, artičok pripravených na kuchynskú úpravu a konzervovaných artičok, ktoré sa uvádza na trh, musí byť jednotný a skladať sa len z artičok odrody Blanca de Tudela, ktoré boli vypestované v oblasti výroby a spĺňajú kvalitatívne požiadavky platné pre uvedenú komerčnú triedu.

3.6. Špecifické pravidlá označovania výrobku, na ktorý sa vzťahuje registrovaný názov

Všetky balenia používané na čerstvé alebo konzervované produkty musia byť bez ohľadu na formu označené očíslovanými certifikačnými etiketami alebo páskami vydanými regulačnou radou, ktoré sú zárukou certifikácie chráneného výrobku.

Etikety a certifikačné etikety chránených artičok sa musia umiestňovať v registrovaných zariadeniach. Platí to pre artičoky predávané ako čerstvý produkt, ako aj pre konzervované artičoky.

Registrované spracovateľské a/alebo prípravné podniky musia predložiť etikety na registráciu regulačnej rade predtým, ako ich uvedú do obehu.

Logo CHZO a očíslovaná certifikačná etiketa a páska vydané regulačnou radou ako záruka certifikácie chráneného výrobku:


Logo CHZO „Alcachofa de Tudela“	Certifikačná etiketa

Páska

4. Stručné vymedzenie zemepisnej oblasti

Zemepisná oblasť, v ktorej sa musia nachádzať plantáže, je menšia ako zemepisná oblasť, v ktorej sa musia nachádzať sklady a priemyselné zariadenia na prípravu konzervovaného výrobku a balenie čerstvého výrobku alebo výrobku pripraveného na kuchynskú úpravu.

Oblasť pestovania, v ktorej sa musia nachádzať plantáže, na ktorých sa pestujú artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“, zahŕňa 33 obcí, ktoré sa všetky nachádzajú v regióne Navarra: Ablitas, Andosilla, Arguedas, Azagra, Barillas, Buñuel, Cabanillas, Cadreita, Cárcar, Cascante, Castejón, Cintruénigo, Corella, Cortes, Falces, Fitero, Fontellas, Funes, Fustiñana, Lodosa, Marcilla, Mendavia, Milagro, Monteagudo, Murchante, Peralta, Ribaforada, San Adrián, Sartaguda, Tudela, Tulebras, Valtierra a Villafranca.

Sklady a priemyselné zariadenia, v ktorých sa pripravuje konzervovaný výrobok a balí čerstvý výrobok alebo výrobok pripravený na kuchynskú úpravu, sa musia nachádzať v regióne Navarra.

5. Súvislosť so zemepisnou oblasťou

Súvislosti medzi zemepisnou oblasťou a výrobkom „Alcachofa de Tudela“ vychádza z kvality výrobku, ktorú ovplyvňujú vlastnosti zemepisnej oblasti a spôsob pestovania artičok.

5.1. Špecifickosť výrobku

Jedinou povolenou odrodou je odroda Blanca de Tudela, ktorá pochádza zo zemepisnej oblasti pestovania a ktorá sa vyvinula selekciou vykonávanou poľnohospodármi vo vymedzenej oblasti.

Ako čerstvý produkt sa môžu na trh uvádzať len artičoky pestované ako jednoročná plodina, pričom na výrobu konzervovaného výrobku sa môžu použiť artičoky pestované ako jednoročná aj ako dvojročná plodina. Vďaka vytrhávaniu rastlín a odstraňovaniu rastlín, ktoré sa odchyľujú od daného typu, je možné získať vysoko kvalitné artičoky s osobitnými vlastnosťami danej odrody, ktorými sú zelená farba a okrúhly, mierne elipsovitý tvar.

Konzervovaný výrobok sa balí do sklenených nádob a nie je okyslený. Ide o tradičnú metódu výroby konzervovaných artičok vo vymedzenej oblasti. Vďaka nej sa zachováva prirodzená chuť výrobku, ktorá je podobnejšia chuti čerstvých artičok, pretože sa nepoužívajú okysľovadlá ani regulátory kyslosti.

5.2. Špecifickosť zemepisnej oblasti

Systém vôd vo vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti, ktorý tvorí rieka Ebro a jej prítoky Ega, Aragón a Arga, umožnil vznik pestovateľských postupov, pri ktorých sa využívajú tieto vody. Kombinácia vápenatých pôd, slnečného podnebia a veľkých teplotných rozdielov medzi zimou a letom zabezpečuje pre artičoky ideálne podmienky.

Jediná chránená odroda, ktorou je Blanca de Tudela, bola vyvinutá selekciou vykonávanou miestnymi výrobcami, ktorí vytvorili odrodu dokonale prispôsobenú vymedzenej oblasti.

5.3. Ako špecifické vlastnosti zemepisnej oblasti ovplyvňujú výrobok

Zemepisná oblasť, v ktorej sa pestujú artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“, im dodáva viaceré osobitné vlastnosti. Vďaka zimnému odpočinku, ktorý prirodzene vyvolávajú nízke zimné teploty v oblasti pestovania, majú artičoky, ak pučia na konci zimy, kvalitu, ktorá ich odlišuje od plodím pestovaných v miernejších a nepochybne produktívnejších oblastiach. Získané artičoky majú tesnejšie listene a lepšiu chuť.

Metóda používaná na výrobu konzervovaného výrobku, t. j. bez okysľovania, a balenie do sklenených nádob, je charakteristická pre vymedzenú oblasť a umožňuje získať produkt, ktorý má podobné senzorické vlastnosti ako čerstvé artičoky.

Ak je zabezpečené zavlažovanie, artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“ a najmä odroda Blanca de Tudela sú dokonale prispôsobené pôdnym a klimatickým podmienkam vo vymedzenej oblasti. V tejto oblasti sa pestujú prinajmenšom od stredoveku.

Na výrobok „Alcachofa de Tudela“ existuje mnoho bibliografických odkazov. Kritik Caius Apicius (Cristiano Alvarez) nazýva artičoku „Alcachofa de Tudela“„kráľovnou všetkých odrôd artičok“. Artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sú základom mnohých tradičných receptov vo vymedzenej oblasti a, ako uvádza Victor Manuel Sarobe v knihe „La cocina popular navarra“ (Tradičné varenie v Navarre), artičoky „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sú ingredienciou v recepte na tradičnú tudelskú menestru (zeleninovo-strukovinovú polievku).

Odkaz na uverejnenie špecifikácie

https://bit.ly/3iY2g7O.

(1) Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 14.12.2012, s. 1.

		ISSN 1977-1037
Úradný vestník Európskej únie		C 129

Slovenské vydanie	Informácie a oznámenia	Ročník 66 13. apríla 2023

Obsah		Strana
	II Oznámenia
	OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE
	Európska komisia
2023/C 129/01	Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.11005 – RENAULT / MINTH / JV) ( 1 )	1

	IV Informácie
	INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE
	Európska komisia
2023/C 129/02	Výmenný kurz eura – 12. apríla 2023	2
2023/C 129/03	Informácie Európskej komisie uverejnené v súlade s článkom 22 ods. 2 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1005/2008 týkajúce sa oznámení vlajkových štátov (zoznam štátov a ich príslušných orgánov) podľa článku 20 ods. 1, 2 a 3 a prílohy III k nariadeniu (ES) č. 1005/2008	3
	INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU
	Dozorný výbor EZVO
2023/C 129/04	Rozhodnutie č. 44/23/COL z 8. marca 2023 o začatí formálneho vyšetrovania údajnej štátnej pomoci poskytnutej spoločnosti Farice – Výzva na predloženie pripomienok k štátnej pomoci podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu	22

	Mena	Výmenný kurz
USD	Americký dolár	1,0922
JPY	Japonský jen	146,09
DKK	Dánska koruna	7,4506
GBP	Britská libra	0,88038
SEK	Švédska koruna	11,3480
CHF	Švajčiarsky frank	0,9853
ISK	Islandská koruna	149,10
NOK	Nórska koruna	11,4745
BGN	Bulharský lev	1,9558
CZK	Česká koruna	23,421
HUF	Maďarský forint	376,23
PLN	Poľský zlotý	4,6631
RON	Rumunský lei	4,9385
TRY	Turecká líra	21,0976
AUD	Austrálsky dolár	1,6377
CAD	Kanadský dolár	1,4728
HKD	Hongkongský dolár	8,5737
NZD	Novozélandský dolár	1,7649
SGD	Singapurský dolár	1,4538
KRW	Juhokórejský won	1 448,10
ZAR	Juhoafrický rand	20,1330
CNY	Čínsky juan	7,5183
IDR	Indonézska rupia	16 253,32
MYR	Malajzijský ringgit	4,8193
PHP	Filipínske peso	60,291
RUB	Ruský rubeľ
THB	Thajský baht	37,391
BRL	Brazílsky real	5,4635
MXN	Mexické peso	19,7972
INR	Indická rupia	89,6875

Všeobecné analytické vlastnosti
Maximálny celkový obsah alkoholu (v obj. %)
Minimálny skutočný obsah alkoholu (v obj. %)	11,5
Minimálna celková kyslosť	73,15 v miliekvivalentoch na liter
Maximálny obsah prchavých kyselín (v miliekvivalentoch na liter)
Maximálny celkový obsah oxidu siričitého (v miligramoch na liter)

	V Oznamy
	INÉ AKTY
	Európska komisia
2023/C 129/05	Uverejnenie žiadosti o schválenie podstatnej zmeny špecifikácie výrobku podľa článku 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny	47
2023/C 129/06	Uverejnenie jednotného dokumentu v zmysle článku 94 ods. 1 písm. d) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1308/2013 a odkazu na uverejnenie špecifikácie výrobku v súvislosti s názvom v sektore vinohradníctva a vinárstva	61
2023/C 129/07	Uverejnenie žiadosti o zápis názvu do registra podľa článku 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny	67