13.4.2023

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 129/3

Podatki Evropske komisije, objavljeni v skladu s členom 22(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1005/2008, o obvestilih držav zastave (seznam držav in njihovih pristojnih organov) v skladu s členom 20(1), (2) in (3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1005/2008 ter Prilogo III k navedeni uredbi

(2023/C 129/03)

V skladu s členom 20(1), (2) in (3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1005/2008 (1) ter Prilogo III k navedeni uredbi so naslednje tretje države Evropski komisiji priglasile javne organe, ki so v zvezi s sistemom potrdil o ulovu iz člena 12 navedene uredbe pristojni za:

a)	registracijo ribiških plovil pod njihovo zastavo;

b)	odobritev, začasni preklic in odvzem ribolovnih dovoljenj za njihova ribiška plovila;

c)	preverjanje verodostojnosti informacij, navedenih v potrdilih o ulovu iz člena 12, in potrditev takih potrdil;

d)	izvajanje, nadzorovanje in izvrševanje zakonov, predpisov ter ukrepov za ohranjanje in upravljanje, ki jih morajo upoštevati njihova ribiška plovila;

e)	preverjanje takih potrdil o ulovu za pomoč pristojnim organom držav članic v okviru upravnega sodelovanja iz člena 20(4);

f)	pošiljanje vzorčnih obrazcev njihovih potrdil o ulovu v skladu z vzorcem iz Priloge II in

posodabljanje takih obvestil.

Tretja država

Pristojni organi

ALBANIJA

(a)

—	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)

ALŽIRIJA

(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)

ANTIGVA IN BARBUDA

(a) to (g):

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

ARGENTINA

(a) to (g):

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

AVSTRALIJA

(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

BAHAMI

(a) and (b):

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

—	Department of Marine Resources

BANGLADEŠ

(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)

—	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

BRAZILIJA

(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

ZELENORTSKI OTOKI

(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

—	Servicio Nacional de Pesca

(g):

—	Subsecretaria de Pesca

KITAJSKA

(a) to (g):

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

KOLUMBIJA

(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) in (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 Curacao 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 Curacao

EKVADOR

(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)

EGIPT

(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

SALVADOR

(a):

—	Autoridad Marítima Portuária

(b) to (g):

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

ERITREJA

(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

FALKLANDSKI OTOKI

(a):

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

(b) to (g):

—	Director of Fisheries, Fisheries Department, Falkland Islands Government

FERSKI OTOKI

(a):

—	FAS Faroe Islands National & International Ship Register

(b):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and the Faroe Islands Fisheries Inspection

(c):

—	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

—	Fisheries Department

FRANCOSKA POLINEZIJA

(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

—	Directeur Général des Pêches et de l'Aquaculture

GAMBIJA

(a):

—	The Gambia Maritime Administration

(b):

—	Director of Fisheries

—	Fisheries Department (Director of Fisheries)

GANA

(a) to (g):

—	Fisheries Commission

GRENLANDIJA

(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)

GVATEMALA

(a) to (g):

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

GVINEJA

(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

GVAJANA

(a) to (g):

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

ISLANDIJA

(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

INDIJA

(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

INDONEZIJA

(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

SLONOKOŠČENA OBALA

(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

—	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

JAPONSKA

(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

KENIJA

(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)

KOREJA

(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

—	Centre de Surveillance des Pêches

(e), (f), (g):

—	Direction Générale de la Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques

MALEZIJA

(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

MALDIVI

(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

MAVRETANIJA

(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

MAVRICIJ

(a) to (g):

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

MEHIKA

(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

(f)

—	Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca

ČRNA GORA

(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

MJANMAR

(a):

—	Department of Marine Administration

(b) to (g):

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

NAMIBIJA

(a):

—	Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication

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

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources

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

NOVA KALEDONIJA

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

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

(d):

—	Etat-Major Inter-Armées

NOVA ZELANDIJA

(a) to (g):

—	Ministry for Primary Industries

NIKARAGVA

(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

NIGERIJA

(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

NORVEŠKA

(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

OMAN

(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

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

PAPUA NOVA GVINEJA

(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

FILIPINI

(a):

—	Maritime Industry Authority

(b) to (g):

—	Bureau for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture

RUSIJA

(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 IN 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)

SEJŠELI

(a):

—	Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration

(b):

—	Seychelles Licensing Authority

—	Seychelles Fishing Authority

SALOMONOVI OTOKI

(a):

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

(b) to (g):

—	Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR)

JUŽNA AFRIKA

(a) to (g):

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

ŠRILANKA

(a) to (g):

—	Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

SVETA HELENA

(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

TAJVAN

(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

FRANCOSKA JUŽNA IN ANTARKTIČNA OZEMLJA

(a) to (g):

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

TAJSKA

(a) and (b):

—	The Department of Fisheries

—	The Marine Department

—	The Department of Fisheries

TRISTAN DA CUNHA

(a):

—	Administration Department

(b), (d):

—	Administration Department / Fisheries Department

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

—	Fisheries Department

TUNIZIJA

(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

TURČIJA

(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)

ZDRUŽENI ARABSKI EMIRATI

(a) to (g):

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

ZDRUŽENO KRALJESTVO (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

ZDRUŽENA REPUBLIKA TANZANIJA

(a) to (g):

—	Director of Fisheries Development

URUGVAJ

(a) to (g):

—	Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos (DINARA)

ZDA

(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

—	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 IN FUTUNA

(a):

—	Le Chef du Service des Douanes et des Affaires Maritimes

(b) and (g) :

—	Le Préfet, Administrateur supérieur

—	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) UL L 286, 29.10.2008, str. 1.

(2) V skladu s členom 31 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1005/2008 je Evropska komisija 5. januarja 2023 opredelila Kamerun kot nesodelujočo tretjo državo pri boju proti ribolovu IUU (UL L 8, 11.1.2023, str. 4). V skladu s členom 33 navedene uredbe je Svet Evropske unije Kamerun uvrstil na seznam nesodelujočih tretjih držav pri boju proti ribolovu IUU (UL L 56, 23.2.2023, str. 26). V skladu s členom 38 navedene uredbe je uvoz ribiških proizvodov, ki jih ulovijo ribiška plovila, ki plujejo pod zastavo Kameruna, v Unijo prepovedan.

(3) Uporablja se od 1. januarja 2021.

13.4.2023

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 129/22

Odločba št. 44/23/COL z dne 8. marca 2023 o začetku formalne preiskave domnevne državne pomoči podjetju Farice

Poziv k predložitvi pripomb o vprašanjih državne pomoči v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča

(2023/C 129/04)

Z zgoraj navedeno odločbo, objavljeno v verodostojnem jeziku na straneh, ki sledijo temu povzetku, je Nadzorni organ Efte islandske organe obvestil o svoji odločitvi, da bo začel postopek v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča.

Zainteresirane strani lahko predložijo pripombe v enem mesecu od datuma objave na naslov:

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Avenue des Arts/Kunstlaan 19H

1000 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

registry@eftasurv.int

Pripombe bodo posredovane islandskim organom. Zainteresirana stran, ki predloži pripombe, lahko pisno zaprosi za zaupno obravnavo svoje identitete in navede razloge za to.

Povzetek

Postopek

Nadzorni organ Efte je 23. februarja 2021 prejel pritožbo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pritožba) podjetja Sýn hf. (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sýn) glede podjetja Farice. Podjetje Sýn je med drugim trdilo: (1) da je podjetje Farice prejelo nadomestilo za stroške, povezane z raziskavami, opravljenimi v okviru priprav za tretji podmorski kabel (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ukrep 1); in (2) da je bila kršena obveznost mirovanja v zvezi z naložbo podjetja Farice v tretji podmorski kabel med Islandijo in Evropo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: kabel IRIS ali ukrep 2).

Nadzorni organ Efte je 23. marca 2021 od islandskih organov prejel uradno obvestilo v zvezi z naložbo v kabel IRIS (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ukrep 2). Nadzorni organ Efte je 26. marca 2021 sprejel Odločbo št. 023/21/COL o pomoči podjetju Farice ehf. za naložbo v tretji podmorski kabel, v kateri je ugotovil, da Nadzorni organ Efte ne dvomi, da je pomoč združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v skladu s členom 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP, in zato ni nasprotoval izvajanju ukrepa.

Podjetje Sýn je 9. julija 2021 pri Sodišču Efte vložilo zahtevek na podlagi člena 36 Sporazuma o nadzornem organu in sodišču za razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe št. 023/21/COL z dne 26. marca 2021.

Sodišče Efte je s sodbo z dne 1. junija 2022 razveljavilo Odločbo Nadzornega organa Efte št. 023/21/COL (1).

Opis zadevne pomoči

Domnevni upravičenec je podjetje Farice ehf. (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Farice). Podjetje Farice je zasebna družba z omejeno odgovornostjo, ki je v popolni lasti islandske države. Namen podjetja Farice je veleprodaja mednarodnega prenosa podatkov med državami prek optičnega kabla, upravljanje sistemov optičnih kablov in prodaja storitev v zvezi s tema dejavnostma. Podjetje Farice upravlja dva podmorska kabla, ki tečeta od Islandije do delov Evrope: FARICE-1 in DANICE.

Islandski parlament je 3. junija 2019 odobril resolucijo o politiki elektronskih komunikacij za obdobje 2019–2033 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: telekomunikacijska politika). Cilji politike so med drugim spodbujanje dostopnih in učinkovitih komunikacij ter zagotavljanje varnosti infrastrukture. Politika poudarja, da so za dosego teh ciljev potrebni trije aktivni podmorski kabli za povezavo Islandije s preostalo Evropo z različnih točk dostopa.

Odločba zadeva dva ukrepa:

Ukrep 1 se nanaša na nadomestilo podjetju Farice za raziskave morskega dna pri pripravah za morebitno izgradnjo novega podmorskega kabla med Islandijo in Evropo. Podlaga za delo in nadomestilo je pogodba, podpisana leta 2018 med Skladom za telekomunikacije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sklad) in podjetjem Farice. Ocenjeni stroški so ob podpisu pogodbe znašali 1,9 milijona EUR.

Ukrep 2 se nanaša na naložbo podjetja Farice v kabel IRIS. Islandski organi so izbrali podjetje Farice za izgradnjo in upravljanje tretjega podmorskega kabla, ki povezuje Islandijo in Evropo, tj. kabla IRIS. Ukrep 2 je financirala islandska država z ocenjenim povečanjem kapitala v višini 50 milijonov EUR v podjetju Farice, ki je v popolni lasti islandske države.

Ocena

Obstoj državne pomoči

Nadzorni organ Efte je v svoji odločbi zavzel predhodno stališče, da ne more izključiti, da je ukrep 1 vključeval državno pomoč v korist podjetja Farice.

Natančneje, Nadzorni organ Efte ne more izključiti, da so plačila Sklada podjetju Farice za izvedbo podmorskega raziskovanja zagotovila podjetju Farice selektivno prednost, saj dvomi, da so bila ta plačila izvedena pod tržnimi pogoji.

Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ Efte v svoji odločbi zavzel predhodno stališče, da ukrep 2 vključuje državno pomoč.

Združljivost pomoči

Nadzorni organ Efte glede morebitne združljivosti ukrepa 1 ni prejel nobenih argumentov v zvezi s tem in je islandske organe pozval, naj takšne argumente predložijo.

Nadzorni organ Efte glede morebitne združljivosti ukrepa 2 ugotavlja, da se združljivost pomoči za uvajanje širokopasovnih omrežij za zagotovitev pokritosti, dostopa ali povezljivosti običajno ocenjuje v skladu s smernicami za širokopasovna omrežja.

Na splošno je glavni cilj smernic za širokopasovna omrežja zagotoviti široko razpoložljivost širokopasovnih storitev za končne uporabnike ali dostop do hitrejšega interneta. Zato se uporabljajo za ukrepe pomoči, namenjene primerom, ko trg ne zagotavlja zadostne pokritosti s širokopasovnim omrežjem ali ko pogoji dostopa niso ustrezni. Nasprotno pa smernice za širokopasovna omrežja ne omenjajo mednarodne povezljivosti, varnosti, mednarodnega prenosa podatkov ali podmorskih kablov ter ne določajo izrecno pogojev združljivosti za ukrepe, usmerjene v varnostna vprašanja, ki se pojavljajo zaradi pomanjkanja geografske raznolikosti in zanesljivosti storitev mednarodne povezljivosti.

Zato se zdi, da se ukrep 2, pri katerem je cilj povečanje redundance, varnosti in zanesljivosti storitev mednarodne povezljivosti, ki so že na voljo končnim uporabnikom pri visokih hitrostih, razlikuje od splošne vrste ukrepa, zajetega v smernicah za širokopasovna omrežja, in sicer ukrepov v zvezi s širitvijo ali uvedbo širokopasovnih omrežij in storitev.

Vendar Nadzornemu organu Efte na tej stopnji ni jasno, v kolikšni meri se smernice za širokopasovna omrežja uporabljajo za oceno združljivosti ukrepa 2. Zato je Nadzorni organ Efte islandske organe pozval, naj predložijo dodatne argumente.

V primeru, da se smernice za širokopasovna omrežja za zadevni ukrep ne uporabljajo, člen 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP določa, lahko Nadzorni organ Efte razglasi, da je združljiva „pomoč za pospeševanje razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij, kadar takšna pomoč ne škoduje trgovinskim pogojem v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi“. Da bi bila torej pomoč razglašena za združljivo, mora biti, prvič, pomoč namenjena pospeševanju razvoja nekaterih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali nekaterih gospodarskih območij in, drugič, pomoč ne sme škodovati trgovinskim pogojem v obsegu, ki bi bil v nasprotju s skupnimi interesi.

V zvezi s tem je Nadzorni organ Efte predhodno sklenil, da dvomi o nujnosti ukrepa 2. Pred naložbo v kabel IRIS je islandske organe kontaktiral zasebni subjekt s predlogom za izgradnjo tretjega podmorskega kabla. Čeprav Nadzornemu organu Efte na tej stopnji ni jasno, ali je bila navedena ponudba primerljiva s projektom kabla IRIS ali kaže na poskus vstopa na trg storitev mednarodne podatkovne povezljivosti, Nadzorni organ Efte tako ne more izključiti možnosti, da bi trg lahko zagotovil rezultat, za katerega si prizadeva ukrep 2, kar vzbuja dvom o trditvi islandskih organov, da je bilo treba odpraviti dobro opredeljeno nedelovanje trga.

Poleg tega Nadzorni organ Efte dvomi o sorazmernosti ukrepa 2. Medtem ko so islandski organi ukrep 2 zasnovali tako, da bi omejili znesek pomoči, Nadzorni organ Efte predhodno ugotavlja, da obstoj domnevno stroškovno učinkovitejše alternative postavlja pod vprašaj splošno sorazmernost ukrepa, saj razlika v ceni ni utemeljena.

Nazadnje je Nadzorni organ Efte predhodno sklenil, da dvomi o tem, ali je negativni vpliv ukrepov na konkurenco in trgovino dovolj omejen.

Zato je Nadzorni organ Efte predhodno sklenil, da dvomi o tem, ali pozitivni učinki ukrepa 2 prevladajo nad njegovim morebitnim izkrivljanjem konkurence in negativnim vplivom na trgovino.

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) Sodba Sodišča Efte v zadevi E-4/21, Sýn hf./Nadzorni organ Efte [še neobjavljena].

(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

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 129/47

Objava zahtevka za odobritev spremembe specifikacije proizvoda, ki ni manjša, v skladu s členom 50(2), točka (a), Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil

(2023/C 129/05)

V skladu s členom 51 Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (1) je ta objava podlaga za uveljavljanje pravice do ugovora zoper zahtevek v treh mesecih od datuma te objave.

ZAHTEVEK ZA ODOBRITEV SPREMEMBE SPECIFIKACIJE PROIZVODA ZA ZAŠČITENE OZNAČBE POREKLA/ZAŠČITENE GEOGRAFSKE OZNAČBE, KI NI MANJŠA

Zahtevek za odobritev spremembe v skladu s členom 53(2), prvi pododstavek, Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012

„ALCACHOFA DE TUDELA“

EU št.: PGI-ES-0139-AM01 – 9. 9. 2021

ZOP ( ) ZGO (X)

1. Skupina vložnikov in pravni interes

Consejo Regulador de la Indicación Geográfica Protegida „Alcachofa de Tudela“ (regulativni odbor za zaščiteno geografsko označbo „Alcachofa de Tudela“)

Avda. Serapio Huici, 22 Edificio Peritos

31610 Villava (Navarre)

ESPAÑA

tel. +34 948013045

e-naslov: ajuanena@intiasa.es

Skupina vložnikov zastopa skupne interese pridelovalcev proizvoda „Alcachofa de Tudela“ in ima pravni interes za ta zahtevek za spremembo specifikacije proizvoda za zaščiteno geografsko označbo „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Ta skupina je vložila tudi prvotni zahtevek za status zaščite za ta proizvod.

Regulativni odbor za ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“ je združenje pridelovalcev, ki delajo s proizvodom „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Odbor si prizadeva za zvišanje vrednosti proizvoda in izboljšanje učinkovitosti sheme ZGO v skladu s členom 45 Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.

V skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo, ki se uporablja, mora odbor spodbujati kakovost proizvoda „Alcachofa de Tudela“ ter nadzor in ohranjanje njegovega ugleda. To je navedeno v njegovem poslovniku, ki je bil ratificiran z odlokom ministrstva za kmetijstvo, ribištvo in prehrano z dne 30. maja 2001.

2. Država članica ali tretja država

Španija

3. Postavka v specifikaciji proizvoda, na katero se sprememba nanaša

☐	Ime proizvoda

☒	Opis proizvoda

☒	Geografsko območje

☒	Dokazilo o poreklu

☒	Metoda proizvodnje

☒

Povezava

☒	Označevanje

☒	Drugo: I. nacionalna zakonodaja, ki se uporablja; G. nadzorni organ

4. Vrsta sprememb

☒	Sprememba specifikacije proizvoda za registrirano ZOP ali ZGO, ki se ne šteje za manjšo v skladu s členom 53(2), tretji pododstavek, Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.

☐	Sprememba specifikacije proizvoda za registrirano ZOP ali ZGO, za katero enotni dokument (ali enakovredni dokument) ni bil objavljen, pri čemer se sprememba ne šteje za manjšo v skladu s členom 53(2), tretji pododstavek, Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.

5. Spremembe

5.1 spremembe, ki vplivajo na ključne elemente

5.1.B.1

Odstavku 11 v oddelku specifikacije proizvoda z naslovom Opis proizvoda je bilo po opisu trženja artičok brez peclja dodano naslednje besedilo: „(c) Artičoke, pripravljene za kuhinjsko rabo: Artičoke morajo biti olupljene in pakirane tako, da se ohranita njihov videz in svežina, dokler se ne zaužijejo.“

Utemeljitev te spremembe: dodana je bila možnost trženja olupljenih artičok brez peclja. Trženje artičok v tej obliki potrošnikom omogoča nakup svežih artičok, pripravljenih za kuhinjsko rabo, in bi se lahko izkazalo za učinkovit način doseganja skupin potrošnikov, ki nimajo časa lupiti artičok ali tega ne znajo.

Navedeno je, da morajo biti artičoke pakirane tako, da se ohranita njihov videz in svežina, dokler se ne zaužijejo. Trenutno so običajno vakuumsko pakirane v plastični embalaži. Vendar ni potrebe po izključitvi morebitne uporabe drugih vrst neplastične embalaže, ki se razvijajo.

Te artičoke izpolnjujejo enake zahteve kot neolupljene artičoke, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi; so nekje vmes med navedenimi artičokami in konzerviranimi artičokami, ki so prav tako zajete z ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Besedilo „so lahko v dveh oblikah“ je bilo spremenjeno v „so lahko v treh oblikah“, da se vključi ta tretja oblika.

5.2 Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente

5.2.B Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente oddelka B, Opis proizvoda, specifikacije proizvoda

5.2.B.1

V četrtem odstavku opisa proizvoda v specifikaciji proizvoda je bila beseda „imajo“ spremenjena v „običajno imajo“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: namen te spremembe je pojasniti, da odstavek vsebuje splošen opis sorte blanca de tudela in ne določa nobenih omejitev glede velikosti glavic, ki se lahko oberejo. Velikost glavic se v sezoni obiranja spreminja, pri čemer se večje ali manjše glavice obirajo glede na povpraševanje na trgu in vremenske razmere. Na nekaterih trgih se prednost daje večjim artičokam, medtem ko imajo na drugih trgih prednost manjše artičoke, ki se uporabljajo za konzerviranje.

V nobenem primeru niso zelo velike. Značilnost sorte je, da ne daje velikih artičok, saj rastlina začne cveteti – zaradi česar ni primerna za trženje –, ko artičoka doseže povprečno velikost.

5.2.B.2

Deseti odstavek opisa proizvoda v specifikaciji proizvoda, v katerem je obravnavana predstavitev artičok, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi, je bil spremenjen, da bi bil jasnejši, vendar niso bile uvedene nobene nove omejitve.

Opis artičok s peclji se zdaj glasi „(a) Artičoke s pecljem. — Glavice imajo lahko približno 18 cm dolg pecelj z vsaj enim ali dvema celima listoma. Prodajati jih je treba na ducate.“ Dodani sta bili besedi „približno“ in „vsaj“, zadnji izraz („na tradicionalen način, in sicer v svežnjih“) pa je bil črtan.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ta sprememba ne uvaja nobenih novih omejitev. Namesto tega je bil njen namen pojasniti, da se proizvod običajno prodaja s pecljem in listi. Čeprav se ti ne uživajo, se proizvod tradicionalno trži z njimi. Artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“ se tradicionalno prodajajo na ducate, pri čemer ima vsaka artičoka približno 18 centimetrov dolg pecelj. Ker pa dolžina peclja ni odločilna za kakovost proizvoda, je bila dodana beseda „približno“, da se omogoči več svobode. Dolžina peclja je odvisna od tega, kdaj v sezoni se proizvod obira. Peclji so na začetku sezone daljši, v nadaljevanju sezone pa vse krajši, kar odraža naravni razvoj rastline.

Nasprotno pa je pomembna prisotnost listov, kadar se artičoke prodajajo na ducate. Čeprav se listi običajno ne uživajo, se sveže artičoke z listi bolje obdržijo. Zato je treba poudariti, da morajo imeti sveže artičoke vsaj en ali dva cela lista in da artičoke brez listov niso dovoljene. To je bilo izraženo z besedo „vsaj“.

Izraz „na tradicionalen način, in sicer v svežnjih“ je bil črtan, ker artičok ni treba tržiti v svežnjih. Artičoke običajno zapustijo prostore registriranih družb za trženje v embalaži, ki omogoča varen prevoz, ne da bi bila pri tem ogrožena njihova kakovost. Artičoke so se v preteklosti na trg dajale v svežnjih, vendar se zdaj običajno na trg pošiljajo v škatlah, saj to omogoča lažji prevoz. Ko prispejo na prodajno mesto, se prodajajo na ducate, vendar ne nujno v svežnjih.

5.2.B.3

Enajsti odstavek opisa proizvoda v specifikaciji proizvoda, v katerem je obravnavana predstavitev artičok, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi, je bil spremenjen, da bi bil jasnejši, vendar niso bile uvedene nobene nove omejitve. Izraz „in nima listov“ je bil spremenjen v „in nima razvitih listov“. Stavek „Prodajajo se po kilogramih“ je bil črtan.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: besedilo je bilo spremenjeno iz „je omejen na“ v „je krajši od“, s čimer se pojasni, da mora biti pecelj krajši od 10 cm.

Pojasniti bi bilo treba, da artičoke, ki se prodajajo v tej obliki, v nasprotju z artičokami s pecljem nimajo razvitih listov. Ta proizvod se običajno prodaja po teži in nima razvitih listov. Artičoke imajo pogosto majhne, nezrele liste, ki so del peclja (ki je krajši od 10 cm). Ker se artičoke prodajajo s pecljem, teh listov ni mogoče odstraniti, ne da bi to vplivalo na ohranitev artičok. Pojasniti bi bilo treba, da ker artičoke, ki se tržijo brez peclja, ne morejo imeti popolnoma razvitih listov, ni treba odrezati majhnih, nezrelih listov, ki so del peclja. Vključena je bila slika artičoke, ki ima nekaj razvitih listov in nekaj majhnih, nerazvitih listov. Njen namen je pokazati, da ni mogoče obrati artičok z minimalno dolžino peclja, ki je potrebna za njeno ohranitev, ne da pri tem ne bi vključili nerazvitih listov.

Stavek „Prodajajo se po kilogramih“ je bil črtan, ker ne določa zahteve. V prvotni specifikaciji proizvoda je bil naveden zaradi podobnosti med temi artičokami in artičokami s pecljem in listi, ki se tržijo na ducate. Vendar ga ni treba ohraniti, ker se artičoke običajno tržijo na ta način.

5.2.B Redakcijske spremembe oddelka B, Opis proizvoda, specifikacije proizvoda

5.2.B.1

Na koncu četrtega odstavka opisa proizvoda v specifikaciji proizvoda je bil črtan stavek „Njen okus je odličen, tudi če je zelena (tj. sveža)“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: stavek „Njen okus je odličen, tudi če je zelena“ je bil črtan. Jasno je, da je njegov namen navesti, da je okus nekuhanega proizvoda odličen, saj so artičoke sorte blanca de tudela vedno zelene. Bolje bi ga bilo črtati, ker je zavajajoč in ne določa zahteve ali opisuje edinstvene značilnosti.

5.2.B.2

V specifikaciji proizvoda je bil črtan peti odstavek, ki se nanaša na Uredbo (ES) št. 1466/2003, iz sedmega odstavka pa je bil črtan izraz „razreda I“.

Utemeljitev tega črtanja: odstavek je bil črtan, ker je bila uredba, na katero se nanaša, razveljavljena, v trenutno veljavni uredbi, tj. Delegirani uredbi Komisije (EU) 2019/428 z dne 12. julija 2018, pa komercialni razredi za artičoke, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi, niso določeni, zato se Uredba ne uporablja kot referenca za določanje komercialnih razredov za artičoke.

Izraz „razreda I“ je bil črtan, ker je, kot je navedeno zgoraj, razvrstitev temeljila na zakonodaji, ki ne velja več.

5.2.B.3

Izraz „Artičoke, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi“ je bil vstavljen na začetku šestega odstavka oddelka specifikacije proizvoda z naslovom Opis proizvoda, da bi bilo besedilo jasnejše.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: besedilo je bilo spremenjeno zaradi jasnosti, saj je bil črtan prejšnji odstavek, ki se je nanašal na razveljavljeno evropsko uredbo. Dodan je bil izraz „Artičoke, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi“, s čimer se pojasni, da se značilnosti, opisane v tem odstavku, nanašajo na artičoke, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi.

5.2.C Redakcijske spremembe oddelka C, Geografsko območje, specifikacije proizvoda

5.2.C.1

Iz tega oddelka specifikacije proizvoda so bile črtane vse nebistvene informacije. Zdaj so navedene zgolj občine, ki sestavljajo opredeljeno geografsko območje. Spremenjen je bil tudi konec besedila: besedilo „isto kmetijsko okrožje, in sicer V ali Ribera“ je bilo spremenjeno v „proizvodno območje“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: prvi odstavek, ki opisuje pokrajino Navarre in okrožja, ki jo sestavljajo, je bil črtan. V besedilu so zdaj navedene zgolj občine, ki sestavljajo območje, zajeto z ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“; preostale informacije niso nikakor opredeljevale tega geografskega območja.

Nasprotno, čeprav se geografsko območje ni spremenilo, upravna razdelitev pokrajine Navarre na kmetijska okrožja ni več enaka razdelitvi, ki je opisana v specifikaciji proizvoda. Zato so bili vsi sklici na kmetijska območja črtani iz besedila, v katerem so zdaj navedene zgolj občine, ki v celoti sestavljajo opredeljeno geografsko območje.

Črtan je bil tudi odstavek, ki opisuje porazdelitev poljščin na opredeljenem območju, saj se porazdelitev poljščin med leti razlikuje, te informacije pa za specifikacijo proizvoda niso pomembne.

Konec zadnjega odstavka je bil črtan, da se črta sklic na kmetijska okrožja. Ta del se zdaj nanaša na proizvodno območje. Kot je bilo že navedeno, se je razdelitev na okrožja med objavo specifikacije proizvoda in današnjim dnem spremenila.

5.2.D Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente oddelka D, Dokaz, da proizvod izvira z območja, specifikacije proizvoda

5.2.D.1

Oddelek D, Dokaz, da proizvod izvira z območja, specifikacije proizvoda je bil v celoti spremenjen: vse nebistveno besedilo je bilo črtano, pri čemer se besedilo zdaj osredotoča na elemente, ki zagotavljajo sledljivost, poreklo in značilnosti proizvoda. Črtano besedilo ne vpliva na ključne elemente.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: namen te spremembe je zgolj bolje in natančneje pojasniti, kako se dokazuje, da proizvod izvira z opredeljenega geografskega območja in izpolnjuje druge zahteve iz specifikacije proizvoda.

Prejšnja ubeseditev tega oddelka specifikacije proizvoda je bila precej nejasna ter ni zagotovila jasne slike o pregledih in preskusih, ki jih je nadzorni organ izvajal za zagotavljanje skladnosti s specifikacijo proizvoda.

Predlagano novo besedilo vsebuje podrobnejšo razlago dejanskih pregledov in preskusov, ki jih inšpekcijski nadzorni organ izvaja v okviru certifikacijskega postopka, ki je skladen s standardom UNE-EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012 in ga je akreditiral nacionalni akreditacijski organ.

Predložene so bile tudi podrobnosti glede sistema inšpekcijskih pregledov, ki temelji na: inšpekcijskih pregledih na kraju samem na poljih artičok, inšpekcijskih pregledih, ki se izvajajo v predelovalnih obratih, ter vzorčenju in analizi v sezoni predelave. Ta sistem dopolnjujejo notranji sistemi inšpekcijskih pregledov, vzpostavljeni v predelovalnih obratih. V besedilu so zdaj določeni tudi registri, v katerih morajo biti navedeni gospodarski subjekti, vključeni v proizvodnjo artičok z ZGO, da se lahko izvaja sistem inšpekcijskih pregledov.

5.2.E Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente oddelka E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda

5.2.E.1

Nespremenjen je ostal le prvi del drugega odstavka oddelka E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda, ki opisuje zahtevo, da se proizvod goji kot enoletnica. Preostali del odstavka je bil črtan, ker je odveč.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: besedilo je bilo črtano, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev glede metode proizvodnje: v njem je navedeno, da se tradicionalno priporoča kolobarjenje, in ugotovljeno, da v primeru neizvajanja kolobarjenja niso bile opažene nobene težave, ki bi jih bilo mogoče pripisati ponavljajoči se pridelavi iste poljščine.

5.2.E.2

Oddelek z naslovom Tla v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, prvotne specifikacije proizvoda je bil črtan, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev za zaščiteni proizvod.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: besedilo je bilo črtano, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev glede metode proizvodnje. Regulativni odbor ne odloča o tem, katera tla so primerna za gojenje; pridelovalec je odgovoren za izbiro zemljišč z značilnostmi tal, ki omogočajo tak razvoj poljščine, da bo ta lahko proizvedla glavice artičoke, ki ustrezajo kakovostnim značilnostim, zahtevanim z ZGO.

5.2.E.3

Oddelek z naslovom Gnojenje v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, prvotne specifikacije proizvoda je bil črtan, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev za zaščiteni proizvod.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: besedilo je bilo črtano, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev glede metode proizvodnje. Prvotno besedilo opisuje način uporabe gnojil v času priprave specifikacije proizvoda in se sklicuje na standarde, ki so bili odtlej razveljavljeni. Pri kolobarjenju in uporabi gnojil je treba upoštevati dobre kmetijske prakse in ravnati v skladu s takrat veljavno zakonodajo. Ker to niso posebne značilnosti proizvodnje artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“, temveč splošne zahteve, jih ni treba navesti v specifikaciji proizvoda.

5.2.E.4

Oddelek z naslovom Saditev v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil spremenjen: besedilo, ki opisuje tehnike gojenja artičok, je bilo črtano, tako da so bile ohranjene le odločilne značilnosti zaščitenega proizvoda.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: odstavki, ki opisujejo tehnike gnojenja in priprave vrst za saditev, so bili črtani, ker se nanašajo na tehnike gojenja, od katerih so nekatere zastarele, na splošno pa niso značilne za ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Gostota zasaditve ter razdalja med rastlinami in vrstami ne vplivata bistveno na kakovost poljščine, temveč sta odvisni od strojev, ki so na voljo pridelovalcu. Opis je bil zato črtan.

Sklic na navarski inštitut za kmetijsko tehnologijo in upravljanje kot organ, odgovoren za nadzor izbora rastlin, je bil črtan; to je bilo javno podjetje, ki je poročalo navarski vladi in ne obstaja več. Zdaj so za izbor rastline, ki se ohrani za proizvodnjo koreninskih vratov, odgovorni kmetje, ki proizvajajo koreninske vratove. Ti kmetje pogosto prosijo neodvisne tretje strani, da potrdijo ustrezen izbor rastline.

Specifikacija proizvoda še vedno vsebuje opis sezone saditve. Vendar datumi niso bili omejeni, ker so odvisni od tega, kdaj se rastlina artičoke posuši, kdaj se pridobijo koreninski vratovi in kdaj so talne razmere primerne za saditev.

5.2.E.5

Oddelek z naslovom Nega v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil črtan, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev, temveč opisuje, kako se gojijo artičoke, in je na nekaterih mestih zastarel.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: besedilo je bilo črtano, ker ne določa posebnih zahtev za ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“; opisuje le tehniko, ki se je uporabljala v času priprave specifikacije proizvoda. Plevel se s številnih zemljišč danes ne odstranjuje. Namesto tega je dovoljena nadzorovana rast plevela, da se zagotovi pokritost tal in prepreči izhlapevanje vode. Druga možnost je, da se za zatiranje plevela in odpravo potrebe po uporabi herbicidov uporabijo materiali za prekrivanje tal.

5.2.E.6

Oddelek z naslovom Namakanje v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil spremenjen: odstavki, ki ne določajo zahtev in zgolj opisujejo opredeljeno področje, so bili črtani, besedilo pa je bilo izboljšano, da bi bilo jasnejše.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: v besedilu je zdaj poudarjeno, da je za gojenje artičok potrebno namakanje, saj je na proizvodnem območju malo padavin.

Besedilo, ki opisuje tehnike namakanja, je bilo črtano, ker je splošno, saj so najprimernejše tehnike namakanja odvisne od vremenskih razmer v vsaki fazi gojenja.

Besedilo o namakanju na poljih, ki se obdelujejo v drugem letu kolobarjenja, je bilo črtano, saj je tudi to odvisno od vremenskih razmer v vsaki fazi gojenja.

5.2.E.7

Oddelek z naslovom Obdelava je bil črtan iz oddelka E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda.

Utemeljitev tega črtanja: to besedilo je bilo črtano, ker se nanaša na fitofarmacevtska sredstva, ki so se uporabljala v času priprave prvotne specifikacije proizvoda, med katerimi so zdaj nekatera prepovedana. Z evropsko zakonodajo se omejuje uporaba fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, številni pridelovalci artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“ pa se zatekajo k organskim pripravkom. Zato ni smiselno navajati fitofarmacevtskih sredstev, saj se lahko ta sčasoma spremenijo, v zvezi z njimi pa za ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“ ni posebnih zahtev.

5.2.E.8

Deli oddelka z naslovom Obiranje v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda so bili črtani, ker so to splošni opisi gojenja artičok. Ohranjene so bile le zahteve, ki se izrecno nanašajo na zaščiteni proizvod.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: odstavek, ki se nanaša na optimalen razvoj glavic artičoke, je bil črtan, ker je to splošen opis, ki se uporablja za vse artičoke, in ne določa posebnih zahtev, ki bi jih bilo treba vključiti v specifikacijo proizvoda.

Odstavki, ki se nanašajo na dobe obiranja in predvidene uporabe obranih artičok, so bili črtani. Obiranje se začne, ko so na rastlini popolnoma razvite artičoke; čas, ko se to zgodi, se zelo razlikuje glede na jesensko vreme in zimsko zmrzal, saj se lahko obiranje artičok za certificiranje začne šele po koncu zmrzali.

Uporaba obranih artičok je odvisna od povpraševanja na trgu. Običajno ima prednost trg svežih proizvodov. Kadar je artičok, ki so bile proizvedene, toliko, da jih na tem trgu ni mogoče prodati, gredo na trg s konzerviranimi proizvodi, kjer so cene običajno nekoliko nižje.

V odstavku sta bili spremenjeni dve besedi, da bi se tako izboljšalo besedilo: „odstranijo“ je bilo spremenjeno v „odrežejo“, ker se artičoke obirajo z nožem, „dnevno“ pa je bilo spremenjeno v „redno“, ker se polja ne obirajo vsak dan; glede na vremenske razmere se artičoke lahko razvijajo hitreje ali počasneje, zaradi česar je treba povečati ali zmanjšati pogostost obiranja.

5.2.E.9

Besedilo oddelka z naslovom Ruvanje rastlin v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bilo spremenjeno, da se črta odvečno besedilo in poudarijo posebne zahteve, ki se uporabljajo za artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ta oddelek je bil spremenjen, da bi se poudarilo, da morajo koreninski vratovi, zasajeni v okviru ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“, izvirati z zemljišč, na katerih se artičoke gojijo kot enoletnice in ne kot dvoletnice.

Dodan je bil sklic na julij, ker zasaditev poteka julija in avgusta.

Opis proizvodnje koreninskih vratov je bil črtan, ker ta postopek ni zajet s specifikacijo proizvoda.

5.2.E.10

Naslov in besedilo oddelka z naslovom Predstavitev proizvoda za prodajo kot svežega proizvoda v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda sta bila spremenjena, da bi se bolj poudarile značilnosti zaščitenega proizvoda in črtali odstavki, ki ne določajo odločilnih zahtev v zvezi z značilnostmi artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: v besedilu je zdaj poudarjeno, da morajo artičoke izvirati z registriranih zemljišč, kultivar pa mora biti blanca de tudela: to sta edinstveni značilnosti zaščitenega proizvoda.

Opredelitve dovoljenih vrst embalaže so bile črtane, zato se lahko nosilci dejavnosti sami odločijo, katero vrsto embalaže bodo uporabljali za trženje artičok. Zdaj morajo nadzorni organ obvestiti o embalaži, ki jo uporabljajo. Ker se artičoke zdaj prodajajo kot sveži proizvodi v supermarketih, obstaja povpraševanje po prodajnih enotah, ki so manjše od prodajnih enot, v katerih so se artičoke tržile v času priprave specifikacija proizvoda. Embalaža se ne šteje za edinstveno značilnost svežih artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Besedilo zdaj vsebuje zahtevo, da se tako kot konzerviranim artičokam „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sredstva za kisanje ne smejo dodajati artičokam, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi.

Zahteva glede velikosti ni bila spremenjena.

5.2.E.11

Prvi odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil spremenjen: zaradi večje skladnosti besedila je bilo dodano številčenje, sklic na „oddelek B“ pa je bil črtan, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: naslovu je bilo dodano številčenje, sklic na „oddelek B“ pa je bil črtan, ker ne določa nobenih zahtev.

V besedilu je zdaj določeno, da se lahko uporabljajo le proizvodi „razreda ekstra“ in „razreda I“. Uporaba proizvodov „razreda II“ za proizvodnjo zaščitenega konzerviranega proizvoda tradicionalno ni dovoljena. V specifikacijo proizvoda je bila zato dodana zahteva v zvezi s tem.

5.2.E.12

Drugi odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil spremenjen: dodano je bilo številčenje in besedilo je bilo preoblikovano, da bi bilo bolj usklajeno, poleg tega pa je bilo črtano besedilo, ki ne določa zahtev.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ta oddelek je bil preoblikovan, da bi se ločile različne faze proizvodnje konzerviranega proizvoda. V besedilu je zdaj poudarjeno, da morajo surovine izvirati z registriranih zemljišč in iz zaščitenega kultivarja. Sklic na komercialni razred svežih artičok, ki je bil črtan iz ustreznega oddelka, je bil črtan tudi iz tega oddelka. Ta sprememba je posledica razveljavitve zakonodaje, v kateri je opredeljen „razred I“ za artičoke, ki se tržijo kot sveži proizvodi.

5.2.E.13

Tretji odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil črtan.

Utemeljitev tega črtanja: ker je bil oddelek preoblikovan, ta odstavek ni več smiseln. Zahteve glede sterilizacije so pojasnjene v nadaljevanju.

5.2.E.14

Četrti odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil preoblikovan: razdeljen je bil na dva dela.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: spremenjena je bila le struktura odstavkov; nove informacije niso bile dodane. Prvotni odstavek je bil razdeljen na dva dela, ker opisuje dve fazi predelave konzerviranih artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“: pranje in blanširanje.

5.2.E.15

Peti odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil preoblikovan: razdeljen je bil na dva dela.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ta odstavek je bil preoblikovan, vendar še vedno vsebuje prvotne informacije. Zdaj je v njem pojasnjeno tudi, da je velikost artičok odvisna od premera njihovega srca. Prvotni odstavek je bil razdeljen na dva dela, ker opisuje dve fazi predelave konzerviranih artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“: določanje velikosti in rezanje.

5.2.E.16

Šesti odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil preoblikovan: razdeljen je bil na dva dela. Del besedila je bil spremenjen, da se poudarijo zahteve za artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Utemeljitev teh sprememb: struktura je bila spremenjena. Oddelek, v katerem sta obravnavana pakiranje in dodajanje tekočine za konzerviranje, je bil ločen od oddelka o predgrevanju, ker gre za dve različni fazi v postopku proizvodnje konzerviranih artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“. V oddelku o pakiranju je poudarjeno, da proizvod ne sme vsebovati sredstev za kisanje ali sredstev za uravnavanje kislosti, saj je za zaščiten proizvod značilno, da jih ne vsebuje. V besedilu je zdaj poudarjeno, da mora biti vsebnik izdelan iz stekla, in navedeno, da postopek predgrevanja ni obvezen.

S predgrevanjem se učinkoviteje odstrani zrak, ujet v vsebnikih, vendar če med pakiranjem proizvoda ter zaprtjem in sterilizacijo vsebnika preteče veliko časa, je bolje, da se temperatura proizvoda ne zviša zaradi povezanega mikrobiološkega tveganja. Zaradi predgrevanja bi vsebniki ostali topli dovolj dolgo, da bi lahko nastali termofilni mikroorganizmi, kar bi lahko povzročilo kvarjenje proizvoda.

5.2.E.17

Sedmi odstavek oddelka z naslovom Konzervirane artičoke v oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil preoblikovan: razdeljen je bil na dva dela. Opredelitev pojma „sterilizacija“ je bila razširjena, da bi bila jasnejša.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: uporabljena je bila enaka struktura kot v prejšnjih odstavkih. Besedilo zdaj vključuje zahtevo, da mora biti toplotna obdelava zadostna, da se zagotovi sterilnost konzerviranega proizvoda za trženje; to se zahteva že v okviru sedanjih postopkov certificiranja. Bolje bi bilo, da se predelovalcem omogoči izbira oblike toplotne predelave, ki jo bodo uporabili za konzervirani proizvod, namesto da se določijo temperature, kot so bile določene v prvotni specifikaciji proizvoda. Določeno je bilo, da je temperatura sterilizacije med 115 °C in 121 °C: čeprav je to običajni temperaturni razpon za sterilizacijo konzerviranih artičok, bodo morda v prihodnje obstajali novi avtoklavi, ki bodo ponujali uporabo ustreznejših in energijsko manj intenzivnih metod obdelave, s katerimi bo ohranjena tekstura konzerviranega proizvoda, kot se zahteva za status zaščite.

5.2.E.18

V oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bil iz preglednice o konzerviranih artičokah „Alcachofa de Tudela“ črtan stolpec, v katerem je opredeljen „razred II“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: zahteve za komercialni razred „razred II“ so bile črtane iz preglednice, ker ta razred ni zajet z ZGO in lahko njegova navedba povzroči zmedo.

5.2.E.19

V oddelku E, Metoda proizvodnje, specifikacije proizvoda je bila zaradi jasnosti razširjena druga točka opisa enotnosti velikosti.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: srce je najbolj cenjen del artičoke, pri čemer za artičoke z zelo dolgimi ovršnimi listi velja, da so slabše kakovosti kot artičoke s krajšimi ovršnimi listi, saj je bilo pri obdelavi src odrezanih manj ovršnih listov. Zato je v besedilu zdaj poudarjeno, da se enotnost meri z upoštevanjem enotnosti dolžine ovršnih listov. Meritev se opravi tako kot prej, in sicer z upoštevanjem 20 % artičok z daljšimi ovršnimi listi in 20 % artičok s krajšimi ovršnimi listi, pri čemer se rezultat prikaže kot razmerje med obema deležema.

5.2.F Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente oddelka F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda

Spremembe v nadaljevanju se nanašajo predvsem na črtanje odstavkov, ki so sicer del oddelka Povezava, vendar ne vplivajo na ključne elemente ali naravo povezave.

5.2.F.1

Prvi trije odstavki oddelka 1. Zgodovinski dejavniki v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda so bili črtani.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ti odstavki so bili črtani, ker ne vsebujejo posebnih informacij o artičokah „Alcachofa de Tudela“, temveč je v njih obravnavano namakanje v pokrajini Navarre.

5.2.F.2

Sklic na zemljevida 2 in 5 je bil črtan iz oddelka 2. Naravni dejavniki v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda, saj zemljevida nista več vključena kot prilogi, besedilo oddelka pa je bilo spremenjeno tako, da se nanaša samo na opredeljeno območje.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: sklic na oba zemljevida je bil črtan, besedilo pa zdaj preprosto opisuje opredeljeno območje. Zemljevida v prvotni specifikaciji proizvoda sta stara in slabe ločljivosti, poleg tega pa specifikaciji proizvoda ne prinašata nobenih informacij.

5.2.F.3

Sklic na zemljevid 5 je bil črtan iz oddelka 2. Naravni dejavniki, (b) Tla, 1. Geologija in litologija, v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda, saj zemljevid ni več vključen kot priloga.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: sklic na zemljevide je bil črtan. Zemljevida v prvotni specifikaciji proizvoda sta stara in slabe ločljivosti, poleg tega pa specifikaciji proizvoda ne prinašata nobenih informacij.

5.2.F.4

Prvih pet odstavkov oddelka 2. Naravni dejavniki, (b) Tla, 2. Značilnosti tal, v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda je bilo črtanih.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ti odstavki so bili črtani, ker ne opisujejo značilnosti tal na opredeljenem območju, temveč opisujejo splošno razvrstitev tal. Ponovno so bili črtani sklici na zemljevide, kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj; v specifikacijo proizvoda niso več vključeni kot priloge.

5.2.F.5

Sklic na zemljevid 8 in zadnji štirje odstavki so bili črtani iz oddelka 2. Naravni dejavniki, (c) Podnebje, v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda.

Utemeljitev tega črtanja: sklic na zemljevide je bil črtan, ker ti niso več del specifikacije proizvoda. Črtani so bili tudi odstavki, ki opisujejo podnebje na podlagi poljščin, ki bi jih bilo mogoče gojiti, ker so splošni: v njih je obravnavan potencial za gojenje drugih poljščin, ki niso artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“, tj. poljščina, zajeta s specifikacijo proizvoda.

5.2.F.6

Nekateri odstavki in sklic na zemljevid 11 so bili črtani iz oddelka 2. Naravni dejavniki, (d) Hidrografija, v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: odstavki, v katerih je obravnavano upravljanje vodnih virov, so bili črtani iz oddelka, v katerem je opisana hidrografija, saj niso pomembni za značilnosti artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

Sklic na zemljevid 11 je bil črtan, ker ta ni več vključen kot priloga, saj gre za star zemljevid, ki ni vseboval nobenih informacij.

5.2.F.7

Oddelek 2. Naravni dejavniki, (e) Rastlinstvo in naravni travniki, v oddelku F, Povezava, specifikacije proizvoda je bil črtan.

Utemeljitev tega črtanja: oddelek o rastlinstvu in naravnih travnikih je bil črtan. Čeprav vsebuje podroben opis rastlinstva in naravnih travnikov na opredeljenem območju, se ne nanaša na nobene posebne značilnosti artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

5.2.G Redakcijske spremembe oddelka G, Nadzorni organ, specifikacije proizvoda

Prvotno besedilo v oddelku z naslovom Nadzorni organ je bilo spremenjeno: vse nebistvene informacije so bile črtane in podatki o nadzornem organu so bili posodobljeni.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: oddelek z naslovom Nadzorni organ v prejšnji različici specifikacije proizvoda je vseboval informacije, ki v tem okviru niso ustrezne, in sicer opis strukture, pooblastil in dolžnosti upravljalnega organa ZGO, kot so določeni v nacionalni zakonodaji. Te informacije so bile črtane in nadomeščene s podatki o nadzornem organu, ki preverja skladnost s specifikacijo proizvoda v skladu s členom 37(1), točka (b), Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. novembra 2012 o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil.

5.2.H Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente oddelka H, Označevanje, specifikacije proizvoda

5.2.H.1

Prvi dve točki oddelka specifikacije proizvoda z naslovom Označevanje sta bili črtani.

Utemeljitev tega črtanja: ti dve točki sta bili črtani, ker ne vsebujeta dodatnih informacij in bi lahko povzročili napačno razlago. Za certificiranje artičok se lahko uporabita dva različna elementa, in sicer certifikacijska etiketa in trak, pri čemer sta oba oštevilčena in ju izda regulativni odbor. Opisana sta v nadaljevanju.

5.2.H.2

Tretja točka v oddelku specifikacije proizvoda z naslovom Označevanje je bila spremenjena: zadnji stavek je bil črtan, v prvem stavku pa je bil dodan izraz „ali trakovi“.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: kot je navedeno v prejšnjem odstavku, mora biti na vso embalažo artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“, svežih ali konzerviranih, pritrjen trak ali certifikacijska etiketa, zato je bil dodan izraz „ali trakovi“. Zadnji stavek je bil črtan, ker ne prinaša pomembnih informacij. Očitno je, da artičoke brez certifikacijske etikete ali certifikacijskega traku niso certificirani proizvodi.

5.2.H.3

Četrta in peta točka oddelka specifikacije proizvoda z naslovom Označevanje sta bili spremenjeni. Zadnji stavek je bil črtan iz četrte točke, besedilo pete točke pa je bilo spremenjeno, saj ne odraža sedanjega sistema certificiranja.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: zadnji del četrte točke je bil črtan, ker se nanaša na pojme, ki niso vključeni v sedanji sistem certificiranja, kot sta odobritev obratov in izločitev proizvodov s strani regulativnega odbora. Regulativni odbor ni odgovoren niti za odobritev registriranih obratov niti za potrditev ali izločitev proizvoda; odločitve o potrditvi/izločitvi sprejme registrirani izvajalec dejavnosti. V besedilu je še vedno navedeno, da mora označevanje potekati v registriranih obratih. Za registracijo mora obrat opraviti vse inšpekcijske preglede in biti certificiran kot obrat za predelavo artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“ ali obrat za trženje, kot je opisano v oddelku z naslovom Inšpekcijski pregledi.

Tudi zato je bila zahteva, da mora trgovske etikete odobriti regulativni odbor, odpravljena. Namesto tega je v besedilu zdaj navedeno, da je treba regulativnemu odboru etikete predložiti za registracijo. Čeprav regulativni odbor ne odobri trgovskih etiket, mora vse etikete registrirati z uporabo oznak. Odstavek je bil zato spremenjen tako, da je v njem določeno, da je treba regulativnemu odboru predložiti etikete. V postopku registracije se lahko dovoljenje za uporabo logotipa ZGO zavrne, če lahko etikete zmedejo potrošnike.

Odstavek, v katerem je navedena zavrnitev odobritve etiket s strani regulativnega odbora, je bil črtan, ker regulativni odbor v skladu s sedanjo zakonodajo ni odgovoren za odobritev ali zavrnitev odobritve etiket.

5.2.H.5

Zadnja točka oddelka specifikacije proizvoda z naslovom Označevanje je bila spremenjena: tudi tu je bil dodan izraz „in pasovi“, pri čemer je bilo slikovno gradivo vključeno v besedilo, namesto da bi bilo navedeno kot priloga (kot je bilo v prvotni specifikaciji proizvoda).

Utemeljitev te spremembe: ponovno je bil dodan izraz „in trakovi“, ker sta certifikacijska etiketa, navedena v prvotnem besedilu, in trak elementa certificiranja.

Slikovno gradivo za logotip, certifikacijsko etiketo in trak je bilo vstavljeno v glavni dokument, namesto da bi bilo vključeno kot priloga.

5.2.I Spremembe, ki ne vplivajo na ključne elemente oddelka I Nacionalna zakonodaja, ki se uporablja, specifikacije proizvoda

Sklici na razveljavljeno nacionalno zakonodajo so bili črtani. Dodan je bil sklic na zakonodajo o standardih kakovosti konzervirane zelenjave, ki je upoštevna, saj določa komercialne razrede za konzervirane sveže proizvode.

Utemeljitev te spremembe: vsi zakonodajni akti s prejšnjega seznama so bili razveljavljeni.

Čeprav v specifikacije proizvoda ni več treba vključiti tega oddelka o nacionalni zakonodaji, ki se uporablja, v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. novembra 2012 o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil, je bil ta ohranjen zaradi ohranitve sklicevanja na odlok urada predsednika vlade z dne 21. novembra 1984 o odobritvi standardov kakovosti za konzerviranje svežih proizvodov, saj se ta zakonodaja uporablja izrecno za konzervirane artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“.

ENOTNI DOKUMENT

„ALCACHOFA DE TUDELA“

EU št.: PGI-ES-0139-AM01 – 9.9.2021

ZOP ( ) ZGO (X)

1. Ime [ZOP ali ZGO]

„Alcachofa de Tudela“

2. Država članica ali tretja država

Španija

3. Opis kmetijskega proizvoda ali živila

3.1. Vrsta proizvoda

Skupina 1.6 Sadje, zelenjava in žita, sveži ali predelani

3.2. Opis proizvoda, za katerega se uporablja ime iz točke 1

„Alcachofa de Tudela“ se pridobiva iz artičok kultivarja blanca de tudela, ki se gojijo v registriranih nasadih.

Artičoke so cvetne glavice vrste Cynara scolymus L. in sorte blanca de tudela. So lepo oblikovane in zelene barve ter imajo okroglo, nekoliko elipsasto obliko, ki je značilna za kultivar.

Artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“ so lahko v naslednjih oblikah:

—	kot sveži proizvodi, bodisi s pecljem (kadar se tržijo s pecljem, dolgim približno 18 cm) bodisi brez peclja (kadar je pecelj krajši od 10 cm);

—	v obliki, pripravljeni za kuhinjsko rabo, kadar so olupljene in pakirane tako, da proizvod ostane svež;

—	v konzervirani obliki, bodisi v obliki src artičoke bodisi v polovicah artičoke, brez dodanih sredstev za kisanje. Končna vrednost pH konzerviranega proizvoda mora biti višja od 5,0.

3.3. Krma (samo za proizvode živalskega izvora) in surovine (samo za predelane proizvode)

Surovina za artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“ so artičoke sorte blanca de tudela, ki izvira izključno z opredeljenega geografskega območja. Le artičoke, ki se gojijo kot enoletnice, se lahko tržijo kot sveži proizvodi, za konzervirani proizvod pa se lahko uporabijo artičoke, ki se gojijo kot enoletnice ali dvoletnice.

Artičoke, ki se prodajajo kot sveži proizvodi, morajo biti cele, zdrave, brez poškodb, ki jih povzročajo bolezni ali škodljivci, čiste ter brez tujega vonja in okusa.

Artičoke, pripravljene za kuhinjsko rabo, morajo biti olupljene in pakirane tako, da ostanejo sveže. Njihove značilnosti morajo biti podobne značilnostim artičok, ki so namenjene uživanju kot sveži proizvodi.

Konzervirane artičoke morajo biti proizvodi „razreda ekstra“ ali „razreda I“, pakirane v steklene vsebnike brez dodanih sredstev za kisanje in toplotno sterilizirane. Prodajajo se lahko cele ali v polovicah.

3.4. Posebne faze proizvodnje, ki jih je treba izvajati na opredeljenem geografskem območju

Nasadi, v katerih se gojijo artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“, morajo biti v 33 opredeljenih občinah.

Skladišča in industrijski obrati, v katerih se pripravljajo konzervirani proizvodi in pakirajo sveži ali za kuhinjsko rabo pripravljeni proizvodi, morajo biti v pokrajini Navarre.

3.5. Posebna pravila za rezanje, ribanje, pakiranje itn. proizvoda, za katerega se uporablja registrirano ime

Vsebina vsakega pakiranja svežih, za kuhinjsko rabo pripravljenih ali konzerviranih artičok, danih na trg, mora biti enotna, vključuje pa lahko le artičoke sorte blanca de tudela, ki se gojijo na proizvodnem območju in izpolnjujejo kakovostne zahteve, ki se uporabljajo za navedeni komercialni razred.

3.6. Posebna pravila za označevanje proizvoda, za katerega se uporablja registrirano ime

Vsa embalaža, ki se uporablja za sveže in konzervirane proizvode, ne glede na obliko, mora imeti oštevilčene certifikacijske etikete ali trakove, ki jih izda regulativni odbor in predstavljajo potrdilo o jamstvu za zaščiteni proizvod.

Trakovi in certifikacijske etikete za zaščitene artičoke morajo biti pritrjeni v registriranih obratih. To velja za artičoke, ki se prodajajo kot sveži proizvodi, in konzervirane artičoke.

Registrirane družbe za predelavo in/ali pripravo morajo regulativnemu odboru etikete predložiti za registracijo, preden jih dajo v promet.

Logotip ZGO ter oštevilčena certifikacijska etiketa in trak, ki ju izda regulativni odbor kot potrdilo o jamstvu za zaščiteni proizvod, so prikazani spodaj:


Logotip ZGO „Alcachofa de Tudela“	Certifikacijska etiketa

Trak

4. Jedrnata opredelitev geografskega območja

Geografsko območje, na katerem morajo biti nasadi, je bolj omejeno kot geografsko območje, na katerem morajo biti skladišča in industrijski obrati, v katerih se pripravljajo konzervirani proizvodi in pakirajo sveži ali za kuhinjsko rabo pripravljeni proizvodi.

Območje gojenja, na katerem morajo biti nasadi artičok „Alcachofa de Tudela“, obsega 33 občin, od katerih so vse v pokrajini Navarre: 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 in Villafranca.

Skladišča in industrijski obrati, v katerih se pripravljajo konzervirani proizvodi in pakirajo sveži ali za kuhinjsko rabo pripravljeni proizvodi, morajo biti v pokrajini Navarre.

5. Povezava z geografskim območjem

Povezava med geografskim območjem in artičokami „Alcachofa de Tudela“ temelji na kakovosti proizvoda, ki jo oblikujejo značilnosti geografskega območja in način gojenja artičok.

5.1 Posebnosti proizvoda

Edina dovoljena sorta je blanca de tudela, ki izvira z geografskega območja pridelave in so jo kmetje s selekcijo več let razvijali na opredeljenem območju.

Le artičoke, ki se gojijo kot enoletnice, se lahko tržijo kot sveži proizvodi, za konzervirani proizvod pa se lahko uporabijo artičoke, ki se gojijo kot enoletnice ali dvoletnice. Z ruvanjem rastlin in odstranjevanjem rastlin, ki ne ustrezajo zahtevam, je mogoče pridobiti visokokakovostne artičoke z edinstvenima značilnostma sorte: zeleno barvo in okroglo, nekoliko elipsasto obliko.

Konzervirani proizvod se pakira v steklene vsebnike in ni kisan. To je tradicionalna metoda proizvodnje konzerviranih artičok na opredeljenem območju. Omogoča ohranjanje naravnega okusa proizvoda, ki je bolj podoben okusu svežih artičok, saj se ne uporabljajo niti sredstva za kisanje niti sredstva za uravnavanje kislosti.

5.2 Posebnosti geografskega območja

Na opredeljenem geografskem območju je vodni sistem, ki ga tvorijo reka Ebro ter njeni pritoki Ega, Aragón in Arga, omogočil nastanek metode gojenja, za katero je značilno napajanje iz teh voda. Kombinacija apnenčastih tal, sončnega podnebja in izrazitih temperaturnih razlik med zimo in poletjem zagotavlja najustreznejše razmere za artičoke.

Edino zaščiteno sorto blanca de tudela so s selekcijo razvili lokalni pridelovalci, ki so ustvarili sorto, popolnoma prilagojeno opredeljenemu območju.

5.3 Kako posebne značilnosti geografskega območja vplivajo na proizvod

Artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“ imajo zaradi geografskega območja, na katerem se gojijo, številne edinstvene značilnosti. Zimsko mirovanje, ki ga naravno povzročajo nizke zimske temperature, artičokam, ko ob koncu zime vzbrstijo, daje kakovost, s katero se razlikuje od poljščin, ki se gojijo na zmernejših in nedvomno produktivnejših območjih. Pridobljene artičoke imajo ostrejše ovršne liste in boljši okus.

Metoda, uporabljena za proizvodnjo konzerviranega proizvoda, tj. neuporaba sredstva za kisanje v proizvodu in njegovo pakiranje v steklene vsebnike, je značilna za opredeljeno območje in omogoča pridobivanje proizvoda s podobnimi senzoričnimi lastnostmi, kot jih imajo sveže artičoke.

Artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“, zlasti sorta blanca de tudela, so popolnoma prilagojene talnim in podnebnim razmeram na opredeljenem območju, ko se to namaka. Na tem območju se gojijo že vsaj od srednjega veka.

Obstajajo številni bibliografski sklici na artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“. Kritik Caius Apicius (Cristiano Alvarez) artičoko „Alcachofa de Tudela“ označuje kot „kraljico vseh sort artičok“. Številni tradicionalni recepti na opredeljenem območju temeljijo na artičokah „Alcachofa de Tudela“, in kot je Victor Manuel Sarobe zapisal v knjigi La cocina popular navarra (Tradicionalna navarska kuhinja), so artičoke „Alcachofa de Tudela“ sestavina avtentične tudelske menestre (enolončnice iz zelenjave in stročnic).

Sklic na objavo specifikacije

https://bit.ly/3iY2g7O

(1) UL L 343, 14.12.2012, str. 1.

		ISSN 1977-1045
Uradni list Evropske unije		C 129

Slovenska izdaja	Informacije in objave	Letnik 66 13. april 2023

Vsebina		Stran
	II Sporočila
	SPOROČILA INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE
	Evropska komisija
2023/C 129/01	Nenasprotovanje priglašeni koncentraciji (Zadeva M.11005 – RENAULT / MINTH / JV) ( 1 )	1

	Valuta	Menjalni tečaj
USD	ameriški dolar	1,0922
JPY	japonski jen	146,09
DKK	danska krona	7,4506
GBP	funt šterling	0,88038
SEK	švedska krona	11,3480
CHF	švicarski frank	0,9853
ISK	islandska krona	149,10
NOK	norveška krona	11,4745
BGN	bolgarski lev	1,9558
CZK	češka krona	23,421
HUF	madžarski forint	376,23
PLN	poljski zlot	4,6631
RON	romunski lev	4,9385
TRY	turška lira	21,0976
AUD	avstralski dolar	1,6377
CAD	kanadski dolar	1,4728
HKD	hongkonški dolar	8,5737
NZD	novozelandski dolar	1,7649
SGD	singapurski dolar	1,4538
KRW	južnokorejski won	1 448,10
ZAR	južnoafriški rand	20,1330
CNY	kitajski juan	7,5183
IDR	indonezijska rupija	16 253,32
MYR	malezijski ringit	4,8193
PHP	filipinski peso	60,291
RUB	ruski rubelj
THB	tajski bat	37,391
BRL	brazilski real	5,4635
MXN	mehiški peso	19,7972
INR	indijska rupija	89,6875

Splošne analitske lastnosti
Največji delež skupnega alkohola (v vol. %)
Najmanjši delež dejanskega alkohola (v vol. %)	11,5
Najnižja vsebnost skupnih kislin	73,15 v miliekvivalentih na liter
Najvišja vsebnost hlapnih kislin (v miliekvivalentih na liter)
Najvišja vsebnost skupnega žveplovega dioksida (v miligramih na liter)

Splošne analitske lastnosti
Največji delež skupnega alkohola (v vol. %)
Najmanjši delež dejanskega alkohola (v vol. %)	12
Najnižja vsebnost skupnih kislin	73,15 v miliekvivalentih na liter
Najvišja vsebnost hlapnih kislin (v miliekvivalentih na liter)
Najvišja vsebnost skupnega žveplovega dioksida (v miligramih na liter)

	IV Informacije
	INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE
	Evropska komisija
2023/C 129/02	Menjalni tečaji eura – 12. april 2023	2
2023/C 129/03	Podatki Evropske komisije, objavljeni v skladu s členom 22(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1005/2008, o obvestilih držav zastave (seznam držav in njihovih pristojnih organov) v skladu s členom 20(1), (2) in (3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1005/2008 ter Prilogo III k navedeni uredbi	3
	INFORMACIJE V ZVEZI Z EVROPSKIM GOSPODARSKIM PROSTOROM
	Nadzorni organ Efte
2023/C 129/04	Odločba št. 44/23/COL z dne 8. marca 2023 o začetku formalne preiskave domnevne državne pomoči podjetju Farice – Poziv k predložitvi pripomb o vprašanjih državne pomoči v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča	22

	V Objave
	DRUGI AKTI
	Evropska komisija
2023/C 129/05	Objava zahtevka za odobritev spremembe specifikacije proizvoda, ki ni manjša, v skladu s členom 50(2), točka (a), Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil	47
2023/C 129/06	Objava enotnega dokumenta iz člena 94(1), točka (d), Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter sklica na objavo specifikacije proizvoda za ime v vinskem sektorju	61
2023/C 129/07	Objava zahtevka za registracijo imena v skladu s členom 50(2), točka (a), Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil	67