# Official Journal C 336/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 336 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5726 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 336

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5726 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 336/01 | Communication from the Commission on the body authorised to issue certificates of origin under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 | 1 |
| 2014/C 336/02 | Communication from the Commission on the body authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 481/2012 | 2 |
| 2014/C 336/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7341 — MVD/Postcon/ADVO) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 336/01

Communication from the Commission on the body authorised to issue certificates of origin under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009

1

2014/C 336/02

Communication from the Commission on the body authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 481/2012

2

2014/C 336/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7341 — MVD/Postcon/ADVO) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2014/C 336/04 | Opinion of the European Central Bank of 24 June 2014 on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions (CON/2014/49) | 5 |

III   Preparatory acts

European Central Bank

2014/C 336/04

Opinion of the European Central Bank of 24 June 2014 on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions (CON/2014/49)

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 336/05 | Euro exchange rates | 20 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2014/C 336/06 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 21 |
| 2014/C 336/07 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 21 |
| 2014/C 336/08 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 22 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 336/05

Euro exchange rates

20

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2014/C 336/06

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

21

2014/C 336/07

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

21

2014/C 336/08

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

22

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 336/09 | Publication of a registration application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 23 |
| 2014/C 336/10 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 27 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2014/C 336/09

Publication of a registration application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

23

2014/C 336/10

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

27

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/1

---

Communication from the Commission on the body authorised to issue certificates of origin under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009

(2014/C 336/01)

On the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union L 254 of 26 September 2009, an import tariff quota has been opened for sugar originating in Australia.

Under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009, the release for free circulation of the goods imported under that quota is conditional upon presentation of a certificate of origin.

The following authority is authorised to issue certificates of origin under the Regulation.

| NSW Business Chamber Ltd t/a Australian Business Chamber |
| --- |
| 375 Wickham Terrace |
| Spring Hill QLD 4000 |
| AUSTRALIA |
| Tel. +61 738422294 |
| Mobile +61 418750679 |
| Fax +61 730133422 |
| E-mail: exportsdocs.qld@australianbusiness.com.au |

NSW Business Chamber Ltd t/a Australian Business Chamber

375 Wickham Terrace

Spring Hill QLD 4000

AUSTRALIA

Tel. +61 738422294

Mobile +61 418750679

Fax +61 730133422

E-mail: exportsdocs.qld@australianbusiness.com.au

---

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/2

---

Communication from the Commission on the body authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 481/2012

(2014/C 336/02)

Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2009 of 13 July 2009 opening an autonomous tariff quota for imports of high-quality beef (1) was amended by Regulation (EU) No 464/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 (2).

Commission Regulation (EC) No 620/2009 of 13 July 2009 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (3) was repealed and replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 481/2012 of 7 June 2012 providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for high-quality beef (4).

Under Article 3 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 481/2012, the release into free circulation of goods imported under the quota bearing the order number 09.2202, which replaced the quota bearing order number 09.4449 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 620/2009, is subject to the presentation of a certificate of authenticity.

The following issuing authorities are authorised to issue certificates of authenticity under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 481/2012:

| Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) of the Australian Government |
| --- |
| 18 Marcus Clarke Street |
| Canberra City ACT 2601 |
| AUSTRALIA |
| Contact point: Biosecurity Service Group |
| Mr Greg READ, Executive Manager |
| Tel. +61 262723594 |
| E-mail: pr@aqis.gov.au |

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) of the Australian Government

18 Marcus Clarke Street

Canberra City ACT 2601

AUSTRALIA

Contact point: Biosecurity Service Group

Mr Greg READ, Executive Manager

Tel. +61 262723594

E-mail: pr@aqis.gov.au

| Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) |
| --- |
| Washington, D.C. 20250 |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| Internet: http://www.fsis.usda.gov |

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Washington, D.C. 20250

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Internet: http://www.fsis.usda.gov

| Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) |
| --- |
| 1400 Merivale Road |
| Ottawa, Ontario |
| K1A 0Y9 |
| CANADA |
| E-mail: bertrand.st-arnaud@inspection.gc.ca |
| Internet: http://www.inspection.gc.ca |

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

1400 Merivale Road

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0Y9

CANADA

E-mail: bertrand.st-arnaud@inspection.gc.ca

Internet: http://www.inspection.gc.ca

| Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry |
| --- |
| Pastoral House |
| 25 The Terrace |
| PO Box 2526 |
| Wellington 6140 |
| NEW ZEALAND |
| Tel. +64 48940100 |
| Fax +64 48940720 |
| E-mail: nzfsa.info@maf.govt.nz |
| Internet: http://www.maf.govt.nz |

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Pastoral House

25 The Terrace

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6140

NEW ZEALAND

Tel. +64 48940100

Fax +64 48940720

E-mail: nzfsa.info@maf.govt.nz

Internet: http://www.maf.govt.nz

| Dirección General de Servicios Ganaderos |
| --- |
| División Industria Animal |
| Constituyente 1476, Piso 2 |
| Montevideo |
| URUGUAY |
| Tel. +598 24126369 |
| Fax +598 24126304 |
| E-mail: digesega@mgap.gub.uy |
| Internet: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/DGSG |

Dirección General de Servicios Ganaderos

División Industria Animal

Constituyente 1476, Piso 2

Montevideo

URUGUAY

Tel. +598 24126369

Fax +598 24126304

E-mail: digesega@mgap.gub.uy

Internet: http://www.mgap.gub.uy/DGSG

| Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas Públicas |
| --- |
| Unidad de coordinación y evaluación de subsidios al consumo interno (UCESCI) |
| Hipólito Yrigoyen no 250, |
| Buenos Aires |
| ARGENTINA |
| Tel. +54 1143495000 |
| E-mail: ucesci@ucesci.gob.ar |
| Internet: www.mecon.gob.ar |

Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas Públicas

Unidad de coordinación y evaluación de subsidios al consumo interno (UCESCI)

Hipólito Yrigoyen no 250,

Buenos Aires

ARGENTINA

Tel. +54 1143495000

E-mail: ucesci@ucesci.gob.ar

Internet: www.mecon.gob.ar

---

(1)  OJ L 182, 15.7.2009, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 149, 8.6.2012, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 182, 15.7.2009, p. 25.

(4)  OJ L 148, 8.6.2012, p. 9.

---

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7341 — MVD/Postcon/ADVO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 336/03)

On 19 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7341. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7341. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

III Preparatory acts

European Central Bank

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/5

---

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 24 June 2014

on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions

(CON/2014/49)

(2014/C 336/04)

Introduction and legal basis

On 18 March 2014 and on 27 March 2014, the European Central Bank (ECB) received requests from the European Parliament and from the Council, respectively, for an opinion on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions (1) (hereinafter the ‘proposed regulation’).

The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as the proposed regulation contains provisions affecting the contribution of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to the smooth conduct of policies relating to the stability of the financial system, as referred to in Article 127(5) of the Treaty. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

1.   General observations

The ECB broadly welcomes the proposed regulation, which is aimed at increasing the safety and transparency of the financial market, in line with recommendations issued by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and endorsed in September 2013 by the G20 leaders (2). The proposed regulation introduces measures in three areas: (1) transaction details must be reported to trade repositories, and competent authorities and relevant Union bodies must have direct and immediate access to these details in order to facilitate monitoring of the build-up of systemic risks related to the use of securities financing transactions (SFTs), which for the purposes of the proposed regulation include repurchase transactions, securities or commodities lending and borrowing, and other transactions with equivalent economic effect and posing similar risks, in particular buy-sell back and sell-buy back transactions; (2) information on SFTs must be disclosed to the investors whose assets are employed in these transactions or in other financing structures that have effects equivalent to SFTs; and (3) there must be contractual transparency of rehypothecation activities. The ECB considers that the new uniform rules on reporting and transparency of SFTs, as well as the provisions on rehypothecation, may play an important role in enhancing financial stability in the Union. Moreover, the proposed regulation should consider the work of the FSB data experts group on securities financing markets, which was established to take forward recommendations on data collection and aggregation at the global level in accordance with the FSB Recommendations, and which will develop proposed standards and processes by the end of 2014 (3). In addition, the ECB makes the following specific comments.

2.   Specific observations

2.1   Exemption for central bank transactions from reporting and transparency obligations

The proposed reporting and transparency framework does not provide an exemption with regard to transactions to which an ESCB central bank is a counterparty (4).

The ECB notes in this respect that, whilst the reporting and transparency of transactions performed by central banks as part of their respective statutory objectives and tasks would not achieve greater transparency for the market, the effectiveness of these operations, namely in the field of monetary policy or foreign exchange operations, and consequently the performance by the central banks of these tasks, which relies on timeliness and confidentiality, could be severely compromised by reporting or transparency of information on such transactions.

Requiring the counterparties to transactions, to which a member of the ESCB is a party, to report all related details to trade repositories may interfere with the confidentiality regimes of the ECB and national central banks (NCBs) and defeat the purpose of the immunities granted to the ECB under the Treaty, in particular the inviolability of the ECB’s archives and official communications (5). For these reasons, SFTs to which an ESCB central bank is counterparty should be exempt from the reporting and transparency obligations.

The ECB would strongly recommend including a transaction-based exemption in the proposed regulation (6). Failure to include such an exemption would have the same effect as imposing such reporting and transparency obligations on the ESCB itself.

2.2   Clarification of the Commission’s power to amend the list of exemptions

In addition, it is necessary to clarify Article 2(3) of the proposed regulation, which gives the Commission power to amend the list of exemptions under Article 2(2) by means of a delegated act. The ECB considers that Article 2(3) should contain a direct reference to the possibility of extending the list of exemptions to include central banks of third countries (7).

2.3   Rehypothecation

For the purposes of the proposed regulation, rehypothecation means ‘the use by a receiving counterparty of financial instruments received as collateral in its own name and for its own account or for the account of another counterparty’ (8). The proposed regulation provides that a counterparty receiving financial instruments as collateral will be allowed to rehypothecate them only with the express consent of the providing counterparty and only after the collateral has been transferred to its own account (9).

The ECB welcomes the reporting obligations for SFTs under Article 4, including the obligation to report details of collateral provided, in particular where it is available for rehypothecation or if it has been rehypothecated. Moreover, the ECB welcomes the contractual transparency requirements under Article 15 of the proposed regulation. However, in order to ensure consistency, the ECB proposes aligning the terminology under the proposed regulation as far as possible with the FSB Recommendations (10), and thus applying the term ‘reuse’ instead of ‘rehypothecation’, which better reflects the broad scope of transactions covered by the proposed regulation and will provide legal certainty to market participants. The ECB provides drafting suggestions for that purpose (11).

With regard to contractual transparency requirements, the proposed regulation does not make a distinction between financial collateral transferred under a ‘title transfer financial collateral arrangement’ and provided under a ‘security financial collateral arrangement’ within the meaning of Directive 2002/47/EC (12). Under the title transfer financial collateral arrangement, the collateral provider transfers full ownership of, or full entitlement to, financial collateral to a collateral taker. By contrast under the security financial collateral arrangement the collateral provider provides financial collateral by way of security to or in favour of a collateral taker, and thus the full or qualified ownership of, or full entitlement to, the financial collateral remains with the collateral provider when the security right is established. From a financial stability perspective, the wide scope of the proposed regulation should, in principle, be welcomed. However, bearing in mind the provisions of Directive 2002/47/EC, a collateral taker should not be restricted from enjoying full ownership or full entitlement to the financial collateral, once a title transfer financial collateral arrangement has been entered into. While the receiving counterparty should nevertheless be obliged to comply with the other requirements under Article 15 of the proposed regulation, it should be clarified that entering into a title transfer financial collateral arrangement already implies a consent to reuse and that any breach of requirements under Article 15 will not affect the validity or enforceability of the SFT, and the receiving counterparty could only be subject to administrative sanctions under the proposed regulation. The ECB provides drafting suggestions for that purpose (13).

The ECB notes that the proposed regulation focuses only on introducing reporting and transparency requirements. However, the recent financial crisis has shown that significant financial stability risks may arise from the practices of reuse and rehypothecation of client assets: they may increase contagion risk, potentially lead to the build-up of excessive leverage in the financial system and may also increase the risk of runs on individual institutions. In this context, it is noted that recommendations have been made at international level by the FSB to introduce limits as regards: (1) the rehypothecation of client assets for the purpose of financing the intermediary’s own-account activities; and (2) the entities allowed to engage in the rehypothecation of client assets (14). Moreover, further measures may also be warranted in the Union. Therefore, the ECB considers that it is important for the Commission to assess the need for further regulatory measures, which go beyond the proposed reporting and transparency requirements, including quantitative limits on reuse and on rehypothecation of client assets, which could be implemented in a future legal act. A thorough cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to ensure such quantitative limits do not have an adverse impact on securities financing markets.

2.4   Modalities for the reporting of data on SFTs

In order to perform ESCB tasks and to monitor the financial markets and financial activities within the euro area and the Union as a whole, the ECB, assisted by the NCBs, needs to collect high quality statistical information (15). Therefore, the transaction details reported to trade repositories and, in certain circumstances, to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) under the proposed regulation are vital for the ESCB to fulfil its tasks: (1) to contribute to the stability of the financial system in accordance with Article 127(5) of the Treaty by monitoring the build-up of systemic risks related to SFTs; (2) to implement monetary policy; (3) to analyse the monetary policy transmission mechanism; (4) to conduct oversight of financial market infrastructures (16); and (5) to provide analytical and statistical support to the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 (17).

For these reasons, and in order to minimise the reporting burden on financial market participants, the details on the specific types of SFTs that must be reported and the format and frequency of those reports should facilitate the use of such information for the ESCB’s tasks. The ECB welcomes the opportunity to cooperate closely with ESMA to develop draft technical standards and stands ready to support ESMA in its task.

Moreover, the ECB recommends that the SFT details should be reported, compiled and made accessible to the ESCB with the maximum degree of granularity and in a fully standardised form. With regard to the data items to be reported, the ECB recommends that the technical standards prepared under Article 4(7) of the proposed regulation require details of the individual assets being used as collateral and the principal amount, currency, type, quality and value of each asset to be reported. This will help to determine the assets that are available for rehypothecation or have been rehypothecated, and will facilitate automatic procedures to compile such information. The technical standards should also allow reporting of individual assets subject to securities or commodities lending or borrowing. Individual assets should also be reported where transactions are collateralised by pools of assets, for example on a portfolio basis or via triparty collateral management services (18). The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of such pools of assets and their dynamic nature, particularly where the composition of the pool changes frequently. The manner in which individual assets are reported should be adjusted accordingly. For example, one option to ease reporting of triparty repurchase transactions could be to allow for the reporting of the end-of-day individual assets composition of the collateral pool securing the transactions. Reporting via the relevant financial market infrastructures may facilitate the technical feasibility of reporting (including of individual collateral assets details) and would be consistent with Article 4(1) of the proposed regulation, which permits counterparties to delegate the reporting of SFTs.

In addition, the ECB suggests that the technical standards should require counterparties to report additional items to facilitate more comprehensive monitoring for financial stability purposes and for the fulfilment of the ESCB tasks outlined above, taking into account, inter alia, international developments such as the ongoing work of the FSB.

The proposed regulation requires details of the SFT to be reported no later than the working day following the conclusion, modification or termination of the transaction. In order to ensure the quality of data, and to ensure that all details are correct and complete, the ECB recommends examining whether requirements for additional, less frequent reporting of all transactions which have not yet matured should be imposed on counterparties. Such additional reporting requirements would be aimed at mitigating the accumulation, over time, of errors in the details of SFTs reported and would be in line with the FSB’s recommendation to collect regular snapshots of outstanding balances (19).

The ECB strongly recommends that technical standards under the proposed regulation require the reported data to include appropriate identifiers by using current and forthcoming internationally agreed standards. ESMA should make the use of such identifiers obligatory for all counterparties which fall within the scope of the proposed regulation, in particular, the international securities identification number (ISIN), the global legal entity identifier (LEI) and a unique trade identifier (20).

First, the ISIN, which is assigned to securities and uniquely identifies a securities issue, should be referred to when non-cash collateral instruments are reported.

Second, to ensure consistency and to provide a tool for appropriate data compilation, all parties to financial transactions should be identified by a unique code. For that purpose, the ECB supports the use of the global LEI system, as endorsed by the European Banking Authority (EBA) and ESMA (21), in a manner which is compatible with the FSB Recommendations (22). Although the global LEI system is not yet fully operational, Article 4(8) of the proposed regulation should refer to the need to apply LEIs in the technical standards, particularly in light of the use of pre-LEIs under the interim global LEI system, which is currently operational (23). The use of the LEI or pre-LEI system will facilitate data collection and aggregation at the global level, in particular to correct double counting for international transactions reported in different jurisdictions.

Third, the ECB strongly recommends the development by ESMA of a unique trade identifier at European level, in the absence of an agreed framework at international level. This is particularly important in order to match information on the same transaction reported by two or more counterparties as well as a necessary condition to ensure the integrity of the information provided by a counterparty, for example, to avoid gaps and double counting.

It is also important to ensure that the ESCB has proper access to complete, fully standardised, granular information collected by trade repositories in formats that facilitate the exercise of ESCB tasks (24). Where ESMA considers it necessary and appropriate, it should have the possibility to include, in the draft technical standards, procedures for trade repositories to verify the completeness and correctness of the data reported to them, in particular where the trade repository detects missing, incomplete or inconsistent information (25). This is without prejudice to the powers of competent authorities to impose administrative sanctions and measures on counterparties in accordance with Chapter VIII of the proposed regulation.

Following the adoption of these technical standards in accordance with the procedure in Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 (26), it is important that they are periodically updated in order to adequately reflect market developments, to enhance the regulatory framework and to give full effect to the European Single Rulebook.

Technical standards adopted under other Union financial services legislation, such as Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, may also need to be aligned with the technical standards adopted under the proposed regulation. This will help to reduce the reporting burden on counterparties, while ensuring that such reports effectively contain the details required under Article 4 of the proposed regulation. Such alignment should seek to ensure comprehensive monitoring of SFTs, in particular the consistency of the details and formats of SFTs reported in accordance with Article 4(6) of the proposed regulation.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 24 June 2014.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  COM(2014) 40 final.

1

(2)  See ‘Strengthening Oversight and Regulation of Shadow Banking: Policy Framework for Addressing Shadow Banking Risks in Securities Lending and Repos’ (hereinafter the ‘FSB Recommendations’), 29 August 2013, available on the FSB’s website at http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/

2

(3)  See Recommendations 2 and 3 of the FSB Recommendations.

3

(4)  Article 2(2) of the proposed regulation only provides a subjective exemption for the members of the ESCB, other Member States’ bodies performing similar functions, other Union bodies charged with or intervening in the management of public debt and the Bank for International Settlements. Counterparties of ESCB central banks’ transactions are not clearly exempt from the reporting and transparency obligations under Articles 4, 13, 14 and 15 of the proposed regulation.

4

(5)  See Article 343 of the Treaty and Article 39 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the ‘Statute of the ESCB’) as well as Articles 2, 5 and 22 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

5

(6)  See Amendment 7 in the Annex to this Opinion. Cf. paragraph 7.2 of Opinion CON/2012/21 and Article 1(6) to (8) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84). All ECB opinions are published on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu

6

(7)  See Amendment 8 in the Annex to this Opinion. This clarification would be consistent with Article 1(6) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1) and Article 1(9) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.

7

(8)  Article 3(7) of the proposed regulation.

8

(9)  Article 15 of the proposed regulation.

9

(10)  See Recommendation 7 of the FSB Recommendations.

10

(11)  See Amendment 10 in the Annex to this Opinion. See also Amendments 2 to 6, 11 and 16.

11

(12)  Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (OJ L 168, 27.6.2002, p. 43).

12

(13)  See Amendments 10 and 19 in the Annex to this Opinion.

13

(14)  See Recommendation 7 of the FSB Recommendations.

14

(15)  Article 5 of the Statute of the ESCB.

15

(16)  See Opinion CON/2011/1.

16

(17)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 of 17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 162).

17

(18)  See Amendment 11 in the Annex to this Opinion.

18

(19)  See Recommendation 2 of the FSB Recommendations.

19

(20)  See Amendment 12 in the Annex to this Opinion.

20

(21)  See EBA Recommendation on the use of the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) (EBA/REC/2014/01), 29 January 2014, available on the EBA’s website at http://www.eba.europa.eu/, and ESMA Questions and Answers document, ‘Implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR)’ (ESMA/2013/1527), 22 October 2013, p. 45, available on ESMA’s website at http://www.esma.europa.eu/

21

(22)  See ‘A Global Legal Entity Identifier for Financial Markets’, 8 June 2012, available on the FSB’s website at http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/

22

(23)  See ‘LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC): 1st progress note on the Global LEI Initiative’, 8 March 2013, available on the LEI ROC’s website at http://www.leiroc.org/. The Interim Global LEI System was launched in January 2013, whereby the LEI ROC accepted as globally compatible any pre-LEI issued by a pre-LOU (Local Operating Unit).

23

(24)  See Amendment 15 in the Annex to this Opinion.

24

(25)  See Amendment 13 in the Annex to this Opinion.

25

(26)  Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84).

26

---

ANNEX

Drafting proposals

| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendments proposed by the ECB (1) |
| --- | --- |
| Amendment 1 |
| Recital 9 |
| ‘As a result, information on the risks inherent in securities financing markets will be centrally stored and easily and directly accessible, among others, to the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the European Banking Authority (“EBA”), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”), the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the European System of Central Banks (“ESCB”), including the European Central Bank (“ECB”), for the purpose of identification and monitoring of financial stability risks entailed by shadow banking activities of regulated and non-regulated entities. ESMA should consider the existing standards established by Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and regulating trade repositories for derivative contracts and their future developments when drawing up or proposing to revise the regulatory technical standards provided for in this Regulation and aim to ensure that the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the ESCB, including the ECB, have direct and immediate access to all the information necessary to perform their duties.’ | ‘As a result, information on the risks inherent in securities financing markets will be centrally stored and easily and directly accessible, among others, to the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the European Banking Authority (“EBA”), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”), the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the European System of Central Banks (“ESCB”), including the European Central Bank (“ECB”), for the purpose of identification and monitoring of financial stability risks entailed by shadow banking activities of regulated and non-regulated entities. ESMA should consider the existing standards established by Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and regulating trade repositories for derivative contracts and their future developments when drawing up or proposing to revise the regulatory technical standards provided for in this Regulation and aim to ensure that the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the ESCB, including the ECB, have direct and immediate access to all the information necessary to perform their duties, including the duties to define and implement monetary policy and to conduct oversight of financial market infrastructures.’ |
| Explanation


  The transaction details reported to trade repositories and, in certain circumstances, to ESMA are vital for the ESCB to fulfil its tasks. The use of these details for that purpose should be reflected in the text of the proposed regulation. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion. |
| Amendment 2 |
| Recital 17 |
| ‘Re-hypothecation provides liquidity and enables counterparties reducing funding costs. However, it creates complex collateral chains between traditional banking and shadow banking, posing financial stability risks. The lack of transparency on the extent to which financial instruments provided as collateral have been re-hypothecated and the respective risks in case of bankruptcy can undermine confidence in counterparties and magnify risks to financial stability.’ | ‘Re-hypothecation
  Reuse provides liquidity and enables counterparties to reduce
  reducing funding costs. However, it creates complex collateral chains between traditional banking and shadow banking, posing financial stability risks. The lack of transparency on the extent to which financial instruments provided as collateral have been re-hypothecated
  reused and the respective risks in case of bankruptcy can undermine confidence in counterparties and magnify risks to financial stability.’ |
| Explanation


  This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion. |
| Amendment 3 |
| Recital 18 |
| ‘This Regulation establishes information rules towards counterparties on re-hypothecation which should not prejudice the application of sectorial rules adapted to specific actors, structures and situations. Therefore, the rules on re-hypothecation provided for in this Regulation should apply, for example, to funds and depositories only insofar as there are no more stringent rules on re-use foreseen within the framework for investment funds constituting a lex specialis and taking precedence over the rules contained in this Regulation. In particular, this Regulation should be without prejudice to any rule restricting the ability of counterparties to engage in re-hypothecation of financial instruments that are provided as collateral by counterparties or persons other than counterparties.’ | ‘This Regulation establishes information rules towards counterparties on re-hypothecation
  reuse which should not prejudice the application of sectorial rules adapted to specific actors, structures and situations. Therefore, the rules on re-hypothecation
  reuse provided for in this Regulation should apply, for example, to funds and depositories only insofar as there are no more stringent rules on re-use foreseen within the framework for investment funds constituting a lex specialis and taking precedence over the rules contained in this Regulation. In particular, this Regulation should be without prejudice to any rule restricting the ability of counterparties to engage in re-hypothecation
  reuse of financial instruments that are provided as collateral by counterparties or persons other than counterparties. The definition of the term “reuse” under this Regulation seeks to provide alignment with the FSB Recommendations. The definition of reuse encompasses the concept of rehypothecation under the FSB Recommendations, without prejudice to the need to define this term for the purposes of future EU legislative initiatives.’ |
| Explanation


  This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion. |
| Amendment 4 |
| Recital 24 |
| ‘In accordance with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary and appropriate to ensure the transparency of certain market activities such as SFTs, rehypothecation and, where appropriate, other financing structures and to enable the monitoring and identification of the corresponding risks to financial stability. This Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on the European Union.’ | ‘In accordance with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary and appropriate to ensure the transparency of certain market activities such as SFTs, rehypothecation
  reuse and, where appropriate, other financing structures and to enable the monitoring and identification of the corresponding risks to financial stability. This Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on the European Union.’ |
| Explanation


  This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion. |
| Amendment 5 |
| Article 1 |
| ‘This Regulation lays down rules on the transparency of securities financing transactions (SFTs), other financing structures and rehypothecation.’ | ‘This Regulation lays down rules on the transparency of securities financing transactions (SFTs), other financing structures and rehypothecation
  reuse.’ |
| Explanation


  This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion. |
| Amendment 6 |
| Article 2(1)(d) |
| ‘(d) | a counterparty engaging in rehypothecation that is established:






  (1) | in the Union, including all its branches irrespective of where they are located; |

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendments proposed by the ECB (1)

Amendment 1

Recital 9

‘As a result, information on the risks inherent in securities financing markets will be centrally stored and easily and directly accessible, among others, to the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the European Banking Authority (“EBA”), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”), the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the European System of Central Banks (“ESCB”), including the European Central Bank (“ECB”), for the purpose of identification and monitoring of financial stability risks entailed by shadow banking activities of regulated and non-regulated entities. ESMA should consider the existing standards established by Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and regulating trade repositories for derivative contracts and their future developments when drawing up or proposing to revise the regulatory technical standards provided for in this Regulation and aim to ensure that the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the ESCB, including the ECB, have direct and immediate access to all the information necessary to perform their duties.’

‘As a result, information on the risks inherent in securities financing markets will be centrally stored and easily and directly accessible, among others, to the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the European Banking Authority (“EBA”), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (“EIOPA”), the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the European System of Central Banks (“ESCB”), including the European Central Bank (“ECB”), for the purpose of identification and monitoring of financial stability risks entailed by shadow banking activities of regulated and non-regulated entities. ESMA should consider the existing standards established by Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and regulating trade repositories for derivative contracts and their future developments when drawing up or proposing to revise the regulatory technical standards provided for in this Regulation and aim to ensure that the relevant competent authorities, the ESRB and the relevant central banks of the ESCB, including the ECB, have direct and immediate access to all the information necessary to perform their duties, including the duties to define and implement monetary policy and to conduct oversight of financial market infrastructures.’

Explanation

Explanation

The transaction details reported to trade repositories and, in certain circumstances, to ESMA are vital for the ESCB to fulfil its tasks. The use of these details for that purpose should be reflected in the text of the proposed regulation. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

The transaction details reported to trade repositories and, in certain circumstances, to ESMA are vital for the ESCB to fulfil its tasks. The use of these details for that purpose should be reflected in the text of the proposed regulation. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

Amendment 2

Amendment 2

Recital 17

‘Re-hypothecation provides liquidity and enables counterparties reducing funding costs. However, it creates complex collateral chains between traditional banking and shadow banking, posing financial stability risks. The lack of transparency on the extent to which financial instruments provided as collateral have been re-hypothecated and the respective risks in case of bankruptcy can undermine confidence in counterparties and magnify risks to financial stability.’

‘Re-hypothecation
  Reuse provides liquidity and enables counterparties to reduce
  reducing funding costs. However, it creates complex collateral chains between traditional banking and shadow banking, posing financial stability risks. The lack of transparency on the extent to which financial instruments provided as collateral have been re-hypothecated
  reused and the respective risks in case of bankruptcy can undermine confidence in counterparties and magnify risks to financial stability.’

Explanation

Explanation

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

Amendment 3

Amendment 3

Recital 18

‘This Regulation establishes information rules towards counterparties on re-hypothecation which should not prejudice the application of sectorial rules adapted to specific actors, structures and situations. Therefore, the rules on re-hypothecation provided for in this Regulation should apply, for example, to funds and depositories only insofar as there are no more stringent rules on re-use foreseen within the framework for investment funds constituting a lex specialis and taking precedence over the rules contained in this Regulation. In particular, this Regulation should be without prejudice to any rule restricting the ability of counterparties to engage in re-hypothecation of financial instruments that are provided as collateral by counterparties or persons other than counterparties.’

‘This Regulation establishes information rules towards counterparties on re-hypothecation
  reuse which should not prejudice the application of sectorial rules adapted to specific actors, structures and situations. Therefore, the rules on re-hypothecation
  reuse provided for in this Regulation should apply, for example, to funds and depositories only insofar as there are no more stringent rules on re-use foreseen within the framework for investment funds constituting a lex specialis and taking precedence over the rules contained in this Regulation. In particular, this Regulation should be without prejudice to any rule restricting the ability of counterparties to engage in re-hypothecation
  reuse of financial instruments that are provided as collateral by counterparties or persons other than counterparties. The definition of the term “reuse” under this Regulation seeks to provide alignment with the FSB Recommendations. The definition of reuse encompasses the concept of rehypothecation under the FSB Recommendations, without prejudice to the need to define this term for the purposes of future EU legislative initiatives.’

Explanation

Explanation

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

Amendment 4

Amendment 4

Recital 24

‘In accordance with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary and appropriate to ensure the transparency of certain market activities such as SFTs, rehypothecation and, where appropriate, other financing structures and to enable the monitoring and identification of the corresponding risks to financial stability. This Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on the European Union.’

‘In accordance with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary and appropriate to ensure the transparency of certain market activities such as SFTs, rehypothecation
  reuse and, where appropriate, other financing structures and to enable the monitoring and identification of the corresponding risks to financial stability. This Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued in accordance with Article 5(4) of the Treaty on the European Union.’

Explanation

Explanation

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

Amendment 5

Amendment 5

Article 1

‘This Regulation lays down rules on the transparency of securities financing transactions (SFTs), other financing structures and rehypothecation.’

‘This Regulation lays down rules on the transparency of securities financing transactions (SFTs), other financing structures and rehypothecation
  reuse.’

Explanation

Explanation

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

Amendment 6

Amendment 6

Article 2(1)(d)

‘(d)

a counterparty engaging in rehypothecation that is established:

(1)

in the Union, including all its branches irrespective of where they are located;

| (2) | in a third country, in either of the following cases:






  (i) | the rehypothecation is effected in the course of the operations of an EU branch; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

in a third country, in either of the following cases:

(i)

the rehypothecation is effected in the course of the operations of an EU branch;

| (ii) | the rehypothecation concerns financial instruments provided as collateral by a counterparty established in the Union or an EU branch of a counterparty established in a third country.’ |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the rehypothecation concerns financial instruments provided as collateral by a counterparty established in the Union or an EU branch of a counterparty established in a third country.’

| ‘(d) | a counterparty engaging in rehypothecation
  reuse that is established:






  (1) | in the Union, including all its branches irrespective of where they are located; |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘(d)

a counterparty engaging in rehypothecation
  reuse that is established:

rehypothecation

reuse

(1)

in the Union, including all its branches irrespective of where they are located;

| (2) | in a third country, in either of the following cases:






  (i) | the rehypothecation
  reuse is effected in the course of the operations of an EU branch; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

in a third country, in either of the following cases:

(i)

the rehypothecation
  reuse is effected in the course of the operations of an EU branch;

rehypothecation

reuse

| (ii) | the rehypothecation
  reuse concerns financial instruments provided as collateral by a counterparty established in the Union or an EU branch of a counterparty established in a third country.’ |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the rehypothecation
  reuse concerns financial instruments provided as collateral by a counterparty established in the Union or an EU branch of a counterparty established in a third country.’

rehypothecation

reuse

Explanation

Explanation

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

Amendment 7

Amendment 7

Article 2(2a)

No text.

‘This Regulation shall not apply to transactions to which the bodies listed in paragraph 2 are counterparty.’

Explanation

Explanation

The subjective exemption of the members of the ESCB from the application of the proposed regulation is not sufficient to ensure that transactions to which ESCB members are counterparty are also exempt from the reporting and transparency obligations. Therefore this new subparagraph is necessary. See paragraph 2.1 of this Opinion.

The subjective exemption of the members of the ESCB from the application of the proposed regulation is not sufficient to ensure that transactions to which ESCB members are counterparty are also exempt from the reporting and transparency obligations. Therefore this new subparagraph is necessary. See paragraph 2.1 of this Opinion.

Amendment 8

Amendment 8

Article 2(3)

‘The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 to amend the list set out in paragraph 2 of this Article.’

‘The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 to amend the list set out in paragraph 2 of this Article and in particular to extend the scope of paragraph 2 to central banks of third countries.

and in particular to extend the scope of paragraph 2 to central banks of third countries.

To that end, by [12 months after the publication of this regulation] the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report assessing the treatment under this Regulation of transactions by third-country central banks, which shall:

To that end, by [12 months after the publication of this regulation] the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a report assessing the treatment under this Regulation of transactions by third-country central banks, which shall:

| (a) | identify provisions applicable in the relevant third countries regarding the regulatory disclosure of central bank transactions, including transactions undertaken by members of the ESCB in those third countries, and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

(a)

identify provisions applicable in the relevant third countries regarding the regulatory disclosure of central bank transactions, including transactions undertaken by members of the ESCB in those third countries, and

identify provisions applicable in the relevant third countries regarding the regulatory disclosure of central bank transactions, including transactions undertaken by members of the ESCB in those third countries, and

| (b) | assess the potential impact that regulatory disclosure requirements in the Union may have on third-country central bank transactions. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(b)

assess the potential impact that regulatory disclosure requirements in the Union may have on third-country central bank transactions.

assess the potential impact that regulatory disclosure requirements in the Union may have on third-country central bank transactions.

If the report concludes that the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 is necessary in respect of transactions where the counterparty is a third-country central bank carrying out monetary policy, foreign exchange and financial stability operations, the Commission shall provide that that exemption applies to that third-country central bank.’

If the report concludes that the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 is necessary in respect of transactions where the counterparty is a third-country central bank carrying out monetary policy, foreign exchange and financial stability operations, the Commission shall provide that that exemption applies to that third-country central bank.

Explanation

Explanation

This drafting proposal aims to ensure consistency with Article 1(9) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. See paragraph 2.2 of this Opinion.

This drafting proposal aims to ensure consistency with Article 1(9) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. See paragraph 2.2 of this Opinion.

Amendment 9

Amendment 9

Article 3(6) third indent

‘“securities financing transaction (SFT)” means:

[...]

| — | any transaction having an equivalent economic effect and posing similar risks, in particular a buy-sell back or sell-back transaction;’ |
| --- | --- |

—

any transaction having an equivalent economic effect and posing similar risks, in particular a buy-sell back or sell-back transaction;’

‘“securities financing transaction (SFT)” means:

[...]

| — | any transaction having an equivalent economic effect and posing similar risks, in particular a buy-sell back or sell-buy back transaction or collateral swap transaction;’ |
| --- | --- |

—

any transaction having an equivalent economic effect and posing similar risks, in particular a buy-sell back or sell-buy back transaction or collateral swap transaction;’

buy

or collateral swap transaction

Explanation

Explanation

The definition of SFTs should be extended to cover other transfers of collateral between counterparties. This facilitates the reporting and monitoring of such transactions in accordance with Article 4 of the proposed regulation, which is important from a macro-prudential perspective, as such transactions can contribute to the build-up of systemic risk.

The definition of SFTs should be extended to cover other transfers of collateral between counterparties. This facilitates the reporting and monitoring of such transactions in accordance with Article 4 of the proposed regulation, which is important from a macro-prudential perspective, as such transactions can contribute to the build-up of systemic risk.

Amendment 10

Amendment 10

Article 3(7)

‘“rehypothecation” means the use by a receiving counterparty of financial instruments received as collateral in its own name and for its own account or for the account of another counterparty;’

‘“rehypothecation
  reuse” means the use by a receiving counterparty of financial instruments received as collateral in its own name and for its own account or for the account of another counterparty;’

Explanation

Explanation

This drafting proposal seeks to reflect that this broad definition is consistent with the term ‘reuse’ under the FSB Recommendations. See paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

This drafting proposal seeks to reflect that this broad definition is consistent with the term ‘reuse’ under the FSB Recommendations. See paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

Amendment 11

Amendment 11

Article 4(7)

‘In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA, in close cooperation with the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and taking into account its needs, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details for the different types of SFTs that shall specify at least:

| (a) | the parties to the SFT and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the parties to the SFT and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it;

| (b) | the principal amount, currency, type, quality and value of collateral, the method used to provide collateral, where it is available for rehypothecation, if it has been rehypothecated, any substitution of the collateral, the repurchase rate or lending fee, counterparty, haircut, value date, maturity date and first callable date. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the principal amount, currency, type, quality and value of collateral, the method used to provide collateral, where it is available for rehypothecation, if it has been rehypothecated, any substitution of the collateral, the repurchase rate or lending fee, counterparty, haircut, value date, maturity date and first callable date.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

‘In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA, in close cooperation with the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and taking into account its needs, shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details for the different types of SFTs that shall specify at least:

| (a) | the parties to the SFT and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the parties to the SFT and, where different, the beneficiary of the rights and obligations arising from it;

| (b) | the individual assets being used as collateral or subject to securities or commodities lending or borrowing, including, as appropriate, individual assets where transactions are collateralised by pools of assets. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of pools of assets in order to facilitate reporting; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(b)

the individual assets being used as collateral or subject to securities or commodities lending or borrowing, including, as appropriate, individual assets where transactions are collateralised by pools of assets. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of pools of assets in order to facilitate reporting;

the individual assets being used as collateral or subject to securities or commodities lending or borrowing, including, as appropriate, individual assets where transactions are collateralised by pools of assets. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of pools of assets in order to facilitate reporting;

| (b)
  (c) | the principal amount, currency, type, quality and value of the individual assets being used as collateral, the method used to provide collateral, where it is available for rehypothecation
  reuse, if it has been rehypothecated
  reused, any substitution of the collateral, the repurchase rate or lending fee, counterparty, haircut, value date, maturity date and first callable date, and market segment. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of pools of assets in order to facilitate reporting. |
| --- | --- |

(b)
  (c)

(b)

(c)

the principal amount, currency, type, quality and value of the individual assets being used as collateral, the method used to provide collateral, where it is available for rehypothecation
  reuse, if it has been rehypothecated
  reused, any substitution of the collateral, the repurchase rate or lending fee, counterparty, haircut, value date, maturity date and first callable date, and market segment. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of pools of assets in order to facilitate reporting.

the individual assets being used as

rehypothecation

reuse

rehypothecated

reused

, and market segment

The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of pools of assets in order to facilitate reporting.

In developing these technical standards, ESMA shall take into account internationally agreed developments and standards.

In developing these technical standards, ESMA shall take into account internationally agreed developments and standards.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

Explanation

Explanation

In order to ensure a sufficient level of standardisation and to facilitate the use of such information for the ESCB’s tasks, it is necessary to clearly set out the details for the different types of SFTs which must be reported to trade repositories, taking into account internationally agreed developments and standards. The technical standards should ensure comprehensive reporting of collateral, including details of individual assets, where transactions are collateralised by pools of assets, such as, for example, on a portfolio basis or via triparty collateral management services. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of such pools of assets and their dynamic nature, adjusting the reporting requirements accordingly. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

In order to ensure a sufficient level of standardisation and to facilitate the use of such information for the ESCB’s tasks, it is necessary to clearly set out the details for the different types of SFTs which must be reported to trade repositories, taking into account internationally agreed developments and standards. The technical standards should ensure comprehensive reporting of collateral, including details of individual assets, where transactions are collateralised by pools of assets, such as, for example, on a portfolio basis or via triparty collateral management services. The technical standards should take into account the technical specificities of such pools of assets and their dynamic nature, adjusting the reporting requirements accordingly. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

Amendment 12

Amendment 12

Article 4(8)

‘In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and taking into account its needs, develop draft implementing technical standards specifying the format and frequency of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different types of SFTs;

ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

‘In order to ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and taking into account its needs, develop draft implementing technical standards specifying the format and frequency of the reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 for the different types of SFTs;

In developing these technical standards, ESMA shall take into account internationally agreed developments and standards. In particular the format of the reports should include, inter alia, the following international standards or other equivalent standards developed over time:

In developing these technical standards, ESMA shall take into account internationally agreed developments and standards. In particular the format of the reports should include, inter alia, the following international standards or other equivalent standards developed over time:

| (a) | global legal entity identifiers (LEIs) or, on an interim basis, pre-LEIs; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

(a)

global legal entity identifiers (LEIs) or, on an interim basis, pre-LEIs;

global legal entity identifiers (LEIs) or, on an interim basis, pre-LEIs;

| (b) | international securities identification numbers (ISINs); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

(b)

international securities identification numbers (ISINs);

international securities identification numbers (ISINs);

| (c) | a unique trade identifier for each transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

(c)

a unique trade identifier for each transaction.

a unique trade identifier for each transaction.

ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and in consultation with market participants, determine the conditions upon which unique trade identifiers are developed, attributed and maintained, where necessary taking into account international developments.

ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and in consultation with market participants, determine the conditions upon which unique trade identifiers are developed, attributed and maintained, where necessary taking into account international developments.

ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

Explanation

Explanation

In order to ensure a sufficient level of standardisation and to facilitate the use of such information for the ESCB’s tasks, it is necessary to clearly specify a number of aspects of the content and format of the reports to trade repositories, taking into account international identifiers, such as global LEIs and ISINs in order to ensure the competent authorities receive transaction details with the necessary data attributes and in appropriate transmission formats. Moreover, ESMA should be given the task to develop a unique trade identifier at European level, in the absence of an agreed framework at international level. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

In order to ensure a sufficient level of standardisation and to facilitate the use of such information for the ESCB’s tasks, it is necessary to clearly specify a number of aspects of the content and format of the reports to trade repositories, taking into account international identifiers, such as global LEIs and ISINs in order to ensure the competent authorities receive transaction details with the necessary data attributes and in appropriate transmission formats. Moreover, ESMA should be given the task to develop a unique trade identifier at European level, in the absence of an agreed framework at international level. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

Amendment 13

Amendment 13

Article 5(6)

‘ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the application for registration referred to in paragraph 4.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

‘ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the application for registration referred to in paragraph 4.

The technical standards may specify the procedures to be applied by trade repositories in order to verify the completeness and correctness of the details reported to them under Article 4(1), where ESMA considers such procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

Explanation

Explanation

ESMA should have the possibility to define procedures for trade repositories to verify the completeness and correctness of the data reported to them under Article 4(1) of the proposed regulation, if ESMA considers this necessary and appropriate. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

ESMA should have the possibility to define procedures for trade repositories to verify the completeness and correctness of the data reported to them under Article 4(1) of the proposed regulation, if ESMA considers this necessary and appropriate. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

Amendment 14

Amendment 14

Article 12(2)

‘A trade repository shall collect and maintain the details of SFTs and shall ensure that the entities referred to in Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, the European Banking authority (EBA) and the European Insurance Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have direct and immediate access to these details to enable them to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates.’

‘A trade repository shall collect and maintain the details of SFTs and shall ensure that the entities referred to in Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, including the ECB in carrying out its tasks within a single supervisory mechanism under Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, the European Banking authority (EBA) and the European Insurance Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) have direct and immediate access to these details to enable them to fulfil their respective responsibilities and mandates.’

Explanation

Explanation

Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 includes the ‘relevant members of the ESCB’. While the ECB would be covered by this term, for the purposes of legal certainty, explicit reference should be made to the ECB’s role within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM).

Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 includes the ‘relevant members of the ESCB’. While the ECB would be covered by this term, for the purposes of legal certainty, explicit reference should be made to the ECB’s role within the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM).

Amendment 15

Amendment 15

Article 12(3)

‘In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and taking into account the needs of the entities referred to in paragraph 2, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:

| (a) | the frequency and the details of the aggregate positions referred to in paragraph 1 and the details of SFTs referred to in paragraph 2; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the frequency and the details of the aggregate positions referred to in paragraph 1 and the details of SFTs referred to in paragraph 2;

| (b) | operational standards required in order to aggregate and compare data across repositories; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

operational standards required in order to aggregate and compare data across repositories;

| (c) | the details of the information to which the entities referred to in paragraph 2 have access to. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the details of the information to which the entities referred to in paragraph 2 have access to.

Those draft regulatory technical standards shall ensure that the information published under paragraph 1 is not capable of identifying a party to any SFT.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

‘In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB and taking into account the needs of the entities referred to in paragraph 2, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:

| (a) | the frequency and the details of the aggregate positions referred to in paragraph 1 and the details of SFTs referred to in paragraph 2; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the frequency and the details of the aggregate positions referred to in paragraph 1 and the details of SFTs referred to in paragraph 2;

| (b) | operational standards required in order to compile, aggregate and compare data across repositories in a fully automatic way; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

operational standards required in order to compile, aggregate and compare data across repositories in a fully automatic way;

compile,

in a fully automatic way

| (c) | the details of the information to which the entities referred to in paragraph 2 have access, taking into account the need to have access to complete, granular data in standardised formats. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the details of the information to which the entities referred to in paragraph 2 have access, taking into account the need to have access to complete, granular data in standardised formats.

, taking into account the need to have access to complete, granular data in standardised formats

Those draft regulatory technical standards shall ensure that the information published under paragraph 1 is not capable of identifying a party to any SFT.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the publication of this Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.’

Explanation

Explanation

In order to perform ESCB tasks and to monitor financial markets and financial activities, the ESCB needs to collect high quality statistical information. Therefore, the draft regulatory technical standards must ensure that the information provided by trade repositories to ESCB members is complete, granular, and accessible in a standardised format from all trade repositories. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

In order to perform ESCB tasks and to monitor financial markets and financial activities, the ESCB needs to collect high quality statistical information. Therefore, the draft regulatory technical standards must ensure that the information provided by trade repositories to ESCB members is complete, granular, and accessible in a standardised format from all trade repositories. See paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion.

Amendment 16

Amendment 16

Article 15

‘Chapter V

Transparency of rehypothecation

Article 15

Rehypothecation of financial instruments received as collateral

| 1. | Counterparties shall have the right to rehypothecation where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:






  (a) | the providing counterparty has been duly informed in writing by the receiving counterparty of the risks that may be involved in granting consent as referred to in point (b) in particular the potential risks in the event of the default of the receiving counterparty; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Counterparties shall have the right to rehypothecation where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a)

the providing counterparty has been duly informed in writing by the receiving counterparty of the risks that may be involved in granting consent as referred to in point (b) in particular the potential risks in the event of the default of the receiving counterparty;

| (b) | the providing counterparty has granted its prior express consent as evidenced by the signature of the providing counterparty to a written agreement or an equivalent alternative mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the providing counterparty has granted its prior express consent as evidenced by the signature of the providing counterparty to a written agreement or an equivalent alternative mechanism.

| 2. | Counterparties shall exercise their right to rehypothecation where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:






  (a) | rehypothecation is undertaken in accordance with the terms specified in the written agreement referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Counterparties shall exercise their right to rehypothecation where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a)

rehypothecation is undertaken in accordance with the terms specified in the written agreement referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1;

| (b) | the financial instruments received as collateral are transferred to an account opened in the name of the receiving counterparty. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the financial instruments received as collateral are transferred to an account opened in the name of the receiving counterparty.

| 3. | This Article is without prejudice to stricter sectoral legislation, in particular to Directive 2011/61/EU and 2009/65/EC.’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

This Article is without prejudice to stricter sectoral legislation, in particular to Directive 2011/61/EU and 2009/65/EC.’

‘Chapter V

Transparency of rehypothecation
  reuse

rehypothecation

reuse

Article 15

Rehypothecation
  Reuse of financial instruments received as collateral

Rehypothecation

Reuse

| 1. | Counterparties shall have the right to rehypothecation
  reuse where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:






  (a) | the providing counterparty has been duly informed in writing by the receiving counterparty of the risks that may be involved in granting consent as referred to in point (b) in particular the potential risks in the event of the default of the receiving counterparty; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Counterparties shall have the right to rehypothecation
  reuse where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:

rehypothecation

reuse

(a)

the providing counterparty has been duly informed in writing by the receiving counterparty of the risks that may be involved in granting consent as referred to in point (b) in particular the potential risks in the event of the default of the receiving counterparty;

| (b) | the providing counterparty has granted its prior express consent as evidenced by the signature of the providing counterparty to a written agreement, or
  to an equivalent alternative mechanism or to a title transfer financial collateral arrangement as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2002/47/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the providing counterparty has granted its prior express consent as evidenced by the signature of the providing counterparty to a written agreement, or
  to an equivalent alternative mechanism or to a title transfer financial collateral arrangement as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2002/47/EC.

or

to

or to a title transfer financial collateral arrangement as defined in Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2002/47/EC

| 2. | Counterparties shall exercise their right to rehypothecation
  reuse where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:






  (a) | rehypothecation
  reuse is undertaken in accordance with the terms specified in the written agreement referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Counterparties shall exercise their right to rehypothecation
  reuse where at least all the following conditions are fulfilled:

rehypothecation

reuse

(a)

rehypothecation
  reuse is undertaken in accordance with the terms specified in the written agreement referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1;

rehypothecation

reuse

| (b) | the financial instruments received as collateral are transferred to an account opened in the name of the receiving counterparty. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the financial instruments received as collateral are transferred to an account opened in the name of the receiving counterparty.

| 3. | This Article is without prejudice to stricter sectoral legislation, in particular to Directive 2011/61/EU and 2009/65/EC.’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

This Article is without prejudice to stricter sectoral legislation, in particular to Directive 2011/61/EU and 2009/65/EC.’

Explanation

Explanation

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of the Opinion.

This amendment seeks to ensure consistency with the introduction of the term ‘reuse’ to the proposed regulation. See Amendment 10 and paragraph 2.3 of the Opinion.

Amendment 17

Amendment 17

Article 17(2)

‘The competent authorities referred to in Article 16 and ESMA shall cooperate closely with the relevant members of the ESCB where relevant for the exercise of their duties, in particular in relation to Article 4.’

‘The competent authorities referred to in Article 16 and ESMA shall cooperate closely with the relevant members of the ESCB, including the ECB in carrying out its tasks within a single supervisory mechanism under Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013, where relevant for the exercise of their duties, in particular in relation to Article 4.’

Explanation

Explanation

Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 includes the ‘relevant members of the ESCB’. While the ECB would be covered by this term, for the purposes of legal certainty, explicit reference should be made to the ECB’s role within the SSM.

Article 81(3) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 includes the ‘relevant members of the ESCB’. While the ECB would be covered by this term, for the purposes of legal certainty, explicit reference should be made to the ECB’s role within the SSM.

Amendment 18

Amendment 18

Article 20(4)(d)

‘Member States shall, in conformity with national law, confer on competent authorities the power to apply at least the following administrative sanctions and other measures in the event of the breaches referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article:

[...]

| (d) | withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation;’ |
| --- | --- |

(d)

withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation;’

‘Member States shall, in conformity with national law, confer on competent authorities the power to apply at least the following administrative sanctions and other measures in the event of the breaches referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article:

[...]

| (d) | withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation of counterparties, other than credit institutions authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

withdrawal or suspension of the authorisation of counterparties, other than credit institutions authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU;

withdrawal or

of counterparties, other than credit institutions authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU

| (da) | withdrawal of authorisation. This power shall be subject to the exclusive competence of the ECB to withdraw authorisations of credit institutions under Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013;’ |
| --- | --- |

(da)

(da)

withdrawal of authorisation. This power shall be subject to the exclusive competence of the ECB to withdraw authorisations of credit institutions under Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013;’

withdrawal of authorisation. This power shall be subject to the exclusive competence of the ECB to withdraw authorisations of credit institutions under Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013;

Explanation

Explanation

The ECB is exclusively competent to withdraw authorisations of credit institutions in accordance with Articles 4(1)(a) and 14(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013. Therefore, the proposed regulation must make clear that withdrawal of authorisation of credit institutions established in participating Member States is subject to the ECB’s exclusive competence. Moreover, in order to ensure the proper functioning and integrity of the SSM, competent authorities should not be entrusted with the power to suspend the authorisation of credit institutions under the proposed regulation.

The ECB is exclusively competent to withdraw authorisations of credit institutions in accordance with Articles 4(1)(a) and 14(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013. Therefore, the proposed regulation must make clear that withdrawal of authorisation of credit institutions established in participating Member States is subject to the ECB’s exclusive competence. Moreover, in order to ensure the proper functioning and integrity of the SSM, competent authorities should not be entrusted with the power to suspend the authorisation of credit institutions under the proposed regulation.

Amendment 19

Amendment 19

Article 20(5)

‘A breach of the rules laid down by Article 4 shall not affect the validity of the terms of a SFT or the possibility of the parties to enforce the terms of a SFT. A breach of the rules defined under Article 4 shall not give rise to compensation rights from a party to a SFT.’

‘A breach of the rules laid down by Article 4 or Article 15 shall not affect the validity of the terms of a SFT or the possibility of the parties to enforce the terms of a SFT. A breach of the rules defined under Article 4 shall not give rise to compensation rights from a party to a SFT.’

Explanation

Explanation

In order to ensure that the contractual transparency requirements under the proposed regulation do not inadvertently create financial stability risks for collateral chains, it should be made clear that breaches of the transparency requirements under Article 15 will not affect the validity or enforceability of the SFT. See paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

In order to ensure that the contractual transparency requirements under the proposed regulation do not inadvertently create financial stability risks for collateral chains, it should be made clear that breaches of the transparency requirements under Article 15 will not affect the validity or enforceability of the SFT. See paragraph 2.3 of this Opinion.

---

(1)  Bold in the body of the text indicates where the ECB proposes inserting new text. Strikethrough in the body of the text indicates where the ECB proposes deleting text.

1

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/20

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 September 2014

(2014/C 336/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2712 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,88 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4433 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78040 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1836 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2076 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1450 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,572 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,54 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1771 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4000 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8684 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4432 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4136 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8564 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6006 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6152 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,85 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2561 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8016 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6246 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 244,83 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1433 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,965 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,9520 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,083 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0551 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9832 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,0873 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2712

JPY

Japanese yen

138,88

DKK

Danish krone

7,4433

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78040

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1836

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2076

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1450

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,572

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,54

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1771

RON

Romanian leu

4,4000

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8684

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4432

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4136

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8564

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6006

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6152

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,85

ZAR

South African rand

14,2561

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8016

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6246

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 244,83

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1433

PHP

Philippine peso

56,965

RUB

Russian rouble

48,9520

THB

Thai baht

41,083

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0551

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9832

INR

Indian rupee

78,0873

---

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

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2014/C 336/06)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 28.8.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.8.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | GHL/2A-C46 |
| Species | Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) |
| Zone | Union waters of IIa and IV; Union and international waters of Vb and VI |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 32/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

28.8.2014

Duration

28.8.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Ireland

Stock or Group of stocks

GHL/2A-C46

Species

Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides)

Zone

Union waters of IIa and IV; Union and international waters of Vb and VI

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

32/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2014/C 336/07)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 28.8.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.8.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | PCR/N1GRN |
| Species | Snow crab (Chionoecetes spp.) |
| Zone | Greenland waters of NAFO 1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 33/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

28.8.2014

Duration

28.8.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Ireland

Stock or Group of stocks

PCR/N1GRN

Species

Snow crab (Chionoecetes spp.)

Zone

Greenland waters of NAFO 1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

33/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/22

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2014/C 336/08)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 28.8.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.8.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or group of stocks | ALF/3X14- |
| Species | Alfonsinos (Beryx spp.) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 34/DSS |

Date and time of closure

28.8.2014

Duration

28.8.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Ireland

Stock or group of stocks

ALF/3X14-

Species

Alfonsinos (Beryx spp.)

Zone

EU and international waters of III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

34/DSS

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/23

---

Publication of a registration application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2014/C 336/09)

This publication confers the right to oppose the registration application, pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
   (2)

‘PECORINO DELLE BALZE VOLTERRANE’

EC No: IT-PDO-0005-01166 — 22.10.2013

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name

‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Italy

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Product Type

Class 1.3. Cheeses

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

‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ is a cheese produced exclusively with vegetable rennet and raw, whole sheep’s milk from flocks located within the geographical area. Four different types are sold, depending on the length of maturation: ‘fresh’, from 7 days to 44 days conservation; ‘semi-mature’, from 45 days to 6 months maturation; ‘mature’, from 6 to 12 months maturation; ‘extra-mature’, over 12 months maturation. Furthermore, ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ has the following characteristics when it is released for consumption:

Physical characteristics: cylindrical form with flat ends and flat or slightly convex heel. End diameter: between 10 to 20 cm. Heel height: between 5 to 15 cm. Weight: from 600 g to 2 Kg, for ‘fresh’, ‘semi-mature’ and ‘mature’ cheese, and up to 7 Kg for ‘extra-mature’ cheese.

Chemical properties: Fat content of the dry matter: > 45 %; Protein (Nx6,25): > 20 %;

Organoleptic characteristics: Rind: ranges in colour from pale, straw yellow to deep yellow. After coating in olive oil and ash the cheese takes on a grey colour. Texture: compact structure and negligible friability, possibly with some holes irregularly dotted through the cheese. When cut, the colour ranges from white for the ‘fresh’ cheese to more or less intense straw yellow for the ‘semi-mature’, ‘mature’ and ‘extra-mature’ versions; Aroma: persistent reminiscent of milk and wild cardoon, with scents of aromatic plants and yellow flowers; Taste: initially mild, with scents of milk and flowers and a note of cardoon; an aftertaste that is long and persistent with fresh green echoes; a slightly spicy end note, a characteristic which becomes more intense the longer the cheese has been matured, accompanied by tastiness and a slightly astringent quality in the ‘mature’ and ‘extra-mature’ cheeses.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

Milk: raw, whole sheep’s milk, produced from flocks of the Sarda breed, reared according to the semi-wild system.

Rennet: vegetable sourced from wild cardoon or artichoke inflorescences (Cynaria cardunculus).

Salt: Fine.

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

At least 2/3 of the sheep’s feed must be provided by grazing in the geographical area of origin. Fodder and cereals containing grains (barley, oats, beans) are administered in quantities varying from 100 g/head/day to 800 g/head/day depending on the period of the year, with larger quantities in the winter months and less in the summer months. The sheep may not be fed with genetically modified products (OGM).

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

Farming of the animals, cheese production and maturing of the cheese are the steps in production which must take place within the production area.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

—

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

When released for consumption, the product must bear a label on one of its two faces containing, in addition to the product logo and the symbol of the Union, the following information in clear lettering:

| — | ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’, followed either by the abbreviation (DOP) [PDO] or by the wording ‘Denominazione di Origine Protetta’ [Protected Designation of Origin] in full; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’, followed either by the abbreviation (DOP) [PDO] or by the wording ‘Denominazione di Origine Protetta’ [Protected Designation of Origin] in full;

| — | the type of maturation (‘fresh’, ‘semi-mature’, ‘mature’ and ‘extra-mature’), |
| --- | --- |

—

the type of maturation (‘fresh’, ‘semi-mature’, ‘mature’ and ‘extra-mature’),

| — | the name, company name and address of the producer, maturer and packager. |
| --- | --- |

—

the name, company name and address of the producer, maturer and packager.

The product may be sold pre-wrapped, or vacuum-packed, whole and/or in portions. In order to avoid the portioning resulting in the loss of the product’s identity, the wording ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ must figure on the labelling accompanied by the product logo and repeated at least four times (at 90° distance). It is forbidden to add any description that is not expressly provided for.

However, the use of names, trade names or private marks is permitted, provided they have no laudatory purport and are not likely to mislead the consumer, as well as other truthful and documented references that are compatible with the legislation in force. The product logo consists, as can be seen below, of a circle at the centre of which is a stylised depiction of a wild artichoke (cardoon) and two curved lines that form the letter ‘V’, the leaves of the wild artichoke and the outline of two hills that appear in the distance with the sky above. Within the circle are the words ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’. The size of the logo may be adapted in proportion to suit different sizes of packaging.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

The sheep must be kept and the ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ cheese produced and matured exclusively on land belonging to the municipalities of Volterra, Pomarance, Montecatini Val di Cecina and Castelnuovo Val di Cecina, Monteverdi, all located in the province of Pisa.

5.   Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

Located at the south-east border of the province of Pisa, the production area extends between the valleys of the rivers Era (to the north) and Cecina (to the south). Given its location inland but not too far from the sea, the area has a sub-coastal climate with rainy autumn and spring months. The geology of the area is extremely varied because of erosion caused by the weather combined with prolonged human activity (deforestation, using land for pasture); this has resulted in the formation of biancane (small clay cupolas), calanchi (a contiguous series of very steep small valleys in the shape of a horse shoe) and balze (gigantic chasms created by the erosive action of rainwater). In such environments the vegetation is subject to extreme selection. The tormented morphology, mobility and low permeability of the substrate, its low organic material content, richness in salts and the long periods of dryness have the effect of selecting vegetation which is saline tolerant and has developed specific survival mechanisms. The peaks of the calanchi (valleys) and ridges are taken up with grass meadows, in the areas with clay sulla clover flowers predominate, and at the foot of the calanchi, plants that can tolerate standing water. Thyme also grows in profusion as do plants used for grazing, such as genet. However, most importantly wild cardoon ‘grows spontaneously in great profusion’ (Amerighi, 1973). Processing the raw milk directly in cheese-making facilities annexed to the housing where the sheep are kept is furthermore the origin of the cottage-industry nature of this activity. Through using the local workforce and continuing to use time-honoured techniques, it has been possible to ensure that the tradition is being continued, with the resulting high levels of specialisation and expertise among the local producers that would be difficult to find in other areas.

5.2.   Specificity of the product

The specificity of ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ is due first and foremost to the specificities of its production method based as it is on the use of rennet derived from the flowers of the cardoon plant, which grows in abundance in the area. This fact and the morphology of the pasture land distinguishes ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ from other sheep’s milk cheeses, especially with regard to its organoleptic profile. Specifically, it stands out on account of its distinct taste, which is unexpectedly mild for a sheep’s cheese, and scent, which is given by the cardoon as well as by the local grasses and flowers, the aromatic essences of which, thanks to the low processing temperature (< 40 °C), stay dissolved and characterise the finished product.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

The area’s climate and geological formation foster the growth of local vegetation, which provides the sheep’s main source of sustenance through grazing and which gives the milk the volatile aromas that give the cheese its distinctive organoleptic qualities. The local environment is also critical for providing the particular type of rennet produced from wild cardoon, which represents one of ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’s’ main characteristics.

The remarkable rock erosion has led to the formation of caves of varying shapes and sizes, used by local shepherds in previous centuries, prior to the arrival of air-conditioned facilities, both for sheltering flocks and to preserve milk and cheese products naturally. In these caves humidity levels tend to be constant, with the result that the sheep’s cheese matures gradually, thus contributing to the specificity of the product. Even today such conditions, which form part of the local know-how, are considered ideal not only by the producers who prefer the entire maturing process or the final stage of it to take place in caves, but also by those equipped with air-conditioned facilities. Such facilities reproduce the temperature and humidity conditions occurring naturally in caves, i.e. temperatures between 7 and 10 °C and 70-90 % humidity.

The human factor is of utmost importance also in the cheese’s processing cycle, in particular during the following operations which are all carried out manually on the basis of traditional skills acquired locally: the addition of vegetable rennet, which requires particular skill given that it coagulates less easily than animal rennet; the cutting of the curd, which is carried out gently with the help of a pointed tool (the ‘spino’ whisk); and the moulding, obtained by applying just the right pressure to allow the whey to be properly drained. As regards the effects of the production process on the characteristics of the end product, it should be noted that the use of vegetable rennet in the production of ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ results in the milk coagulating more slowly and delicately compared to coagulation achieved using animal rennet. This considerably affects the syneresis, i.e. the process by which the whey is drained from the curd, in that the moisture is pressed out more gently and at the same time more slowly than is the case for other cheeses. The result is a milder cheese which is not overly pungent even as far the ‘mature’ and ‘extra-mature’ types are concerned.

In local cuisine ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ is famed for its delicate flavour, is extremely sought after and features as an ingredient in many of the area’s traditional dishes. This cheese is eaten on numerous occasions — as an hors d’oeuvre, with prepared meats and vegetables preserved in oil, grated on savoury dishes with meat sauces or and lastly, depending on its degree of maturation, as a table cheese or for grating into soups and filled oven-baked pasta dishes (such as for example ‘ceci in magro’, a traditional meat-free chickpea dish).

Reference to publication of the specification

(Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (3))

The Ministry launched the national objection procedure with the publication of the proposal for recognising ‘Pecorino delle Balze Volterrane’ PDO as a protected designation of origin in Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 198 of 24.8.2013.

The full text of the product specification is available on the internet: http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/3335

or alternatively:

by going direct to the homepage of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Qualità e sicurezza’ (at the top right-hand side of the screen) and finally by clicking on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE’.

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(3)  See footnote 2.

---

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/27

---

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2014/C 336/10)

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
   (2)

‘CARNIKAVAS NĒĢI’

EC No: LV-PGI-0005-01153 — 11.9.2013

PGI ( X ) PDO ( )

1.   Name

‘Carnikavas nēģi’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Latvia

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

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

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

The name ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ refers to river lampreys (Lampetra fluviatilis) caught in a specific region — the river Gauja in Carnikava municipality — and during a specific time period (from 1 August to 1 February). This application relates to both fresh lampreys and cooked lampreys in aspic.

The name ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ refers to fresh lampreys with the following characteristics:

| — | a long, thin cyclostome with a smooth body, |
| --- | --- |

—

a long, thin cyclostome with a smooth body,

| — | a sucker-like mouth, |
| --- | --- |

—

a sucker-like mouth,

| — | no pectoral or pelvic fins, |
| --- | --- |

—

no pectoral or pelvic fins,

| — | a minimum length of 23 cm, maximum length of 52 cm and a minimum weight of 80 g, |
| --- | --- |

—

a minimum length of 23 cm, maximum length of 52 cm and a minimum weight of 80 g,

| — | colour: dark bluish-green, bluish grey or greenish-brown back and upper flanks, and greyish, golden or white lower flanks and underside, |
| --- | --- |

—

colour: dark bluish-green, bluish grey or greenish-brown back and upper flanks, and greyish, golden or white lower flanks and underside,

| — | a lifespan of up to 7 years. |
| --- | --- |

—

a lifespan of up to 7 years.

The name ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ refers to cooked lampreys in aspic, where the product consists of 70 % lampreys and 30 % aspic.

The cooked lampreys are packaged whole, have a tender or slightly firm consistency, are flattened down, brown in colour, and are covered in transparent yellow or brown aspic. They have a rich, full-bodied and slightly salty taste.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

The ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ used for cooking may be fresh or refrigerated, and the aspic is prepared from water, salt and gelatine.

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

The lampreys are not fed artificially. They feed in the wild.

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

The following stages of the production process must take place in the identified geographical area:

| — | the replenishing of lamprey stocks in the river Gauja by releasing juvenile lampreys reared in the waters of the Gauja into the river’s upper reaches every year; |
| --- | --- |

—

the replenishing of lamprey stocks in the river Gauja by releasing juvenile lampreys reared in the waters of the Gauja into the river’s upper reaches every year;

| — | ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ must be caught in the period from 1 August to 1 February, using pot traps, in the lower reaches of the river Gauja near its estuary; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Carnikavas nēģi’ must be caught in the period from 1 August to 1 February, using pot traps, in the lower reaches of the river Gauja near its estuary;

| — | lamprey preparation — cooking over a coal fire and setting in aspic. |
| --- | --- |

—

lamprey preparation — cooking over a coal fire and setting in aspic.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

—

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

The name ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ is used to label both fresh lampreys and cooked lampreys in aspic that are intended for sale, and when the fish are being sold wholesale or in retail trade this name should be visible on the product’s packaging or by the product.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Carnikava municipality. The lampreys are caught in the stretch of the river Gauja located within the territory of Carnikava municipality.

5.   Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

There is a long history of fishermen operating on the territory of the present-day Carnikava municipality, both on the sea and on the river Gauja. Lamprey fishing was one of the main sources of income for Carnikava manor, built in the 17th century. Today Carnikava is the only place on the banks of the Gauja where the fishing of lampreys is allowed.

Today’s fisherman still apply age-old traditions passed down from generation to generation regarding optimum fishing spots, the habits of lampreys and the influence of weather conditions on their behaviour. These traditions tell us, for example, that there will be no lampreys in the traps after a night when there was a full moon, and it is easier to catch the fish in muddier waters; in addition, as the bed of the Gauja changes each year, it is always necessary to find new fishing spots.

Lampreys have always had a special significance for Carnikava; they have provided local people with work and prosperity, as well as extensive fishing experience and the skills needed to turn them into delicious meals. This is why, outside of Latvia, Carnikava has even been called the ‘lamprey kingdom’. Thanks to its lampreys, the name of Carnikava has been known far and wide since the 17th century, helped, of course, by the local population, who have stuck together and supported each other through both good times and bad.

Lampreys have made Carnikava known far beyond the borders of Latvia, and this has allowed the traditional profession of lamprey fishing to be preserved there up to the present day. A lamprey is also featured on the coat of arms of Carnikava municipality.

To prevent lamprey stocks from depletion, and to allow the skills related to the catching and processing of lampreys to be passed on to future generations, great efforts are made to replenish this resource — juvenile lampreys raised in the waters of the Gauja are released each year into the upper reaches of the river. The artificial restocking of fish populations is a tradition which has existed in Latvia for more than 100 years. An incubator for fish eggs was set up in Carnikava as long ago as 1896.

5.2.   Specificity of the product

The taste characteristics of ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ are connected with the skills of the residents of Carnikava in catching and preparing them; these skills have been preserved since the 17th century and are based on manual work and experience.

The specific rules for the traditional preparation of lampreys apply to river lampreys caught in the specified area, which are characterised by their cleanliness (free from sand) compared with fish from other rivers.

The product owes its special taste both to the producer’s cooking skills, thanks to which the product acquires the necessary colour and consistency, and to the correct cooking time, allowing the lampreys to reach the right level of tenderness.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

The link between the product and the geographical area is based on the reputation of ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ and the skills of the local fishermen and fish processors who preserve ancient traditions and methods.

The significance and reputation of lamprey fishing are attested to by historical records referring to present-day Carnikava as the ‘lamprey kingdom’, thanks to the fishing activities of the local manor. Instructions on the cooking of lampreys date back to 1882. In 1913 lamprey cooking traditions began to feature in recipes, which described the cooking of lampreys in ovens and the addition of boiling water.

Lampreys from Carnikava, caught and cooked at the mouth of the Gauja on the territory of Carnikava municipality, were noted for their high quality as early as the beginning of the 19th century.

The reputation of Carnikava lampreys today is testified to by visitors from all over Latvia who come to the town for its annual Lamprey Festival. Carnikava’s age-old lamprey fishing and cooking traditions are celebrated at the festival each year on the penultimate Sunday in August, where lampreys are made into soup, grilled, bought and sold, and a lamprey speed-eating competition takes place. The festival marks the opening of the lamprey fishing season in Carnikava.

Local undertakings have received quality awards for cooked lampreys in aspic at fairs both in Latvia and abroad. ‘Carnikavas nēģi’ in aspic have received one of Latvia’s highest awards — the title of 2011 Local Identity Product (LIP), which is awarded by the Latvian Rural Forum to food products which conform to set quality and taste criteria, are held in high regard by the local community, are produced in a certain geographical area using local resources, and contribute to the sustainable development of the local area.

A number of tour circuits also include visits to lamprey producers to taste their products, and a visit to the local history museum, where there are exhibits showing the significance to the local area of lamprey fishing and processing.

Carnikava municipality has taken part in tourism fairs in Finland, Estonia and Russia, where it presented its lamprey fishing and preparation traditions.

Reference to publication of the specification

(Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (3))

http://www.pvd.gov.lv/lat/kreis_izvlne/novertesana_un_registracija/lauksaimniecibas_un_partikas_p/

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12. Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

(3)  See footnote 2.

---