# Official Journal C 323/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 323 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 631 October 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 323

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 631 October 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 323/01 | Communication from the Commission — Commission Guidance on the implementation of EU rules on definition and prevention of the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence | 1 |
| 2020/C 323/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9778 — TUI AG/RCCL/Hapag-Lloyd Cruises) (
  1
  ) | 7 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 323/01

Communication from the Commission — Commission Guidance on the implementation of EU rules on definition and prevention of the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence

1

2020/C 323/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9778 — TUI AG/RCCL/Hapag-Lloyd Cruises) (
  1
  )

1

7

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 323/03 | Euro exchange rates — 30 September 2020 | 8 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2020/C 323/04 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 9 |
| 2020/C 323/05 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 10 |
| 2020/C 323/06 | State aid – Decision to raise no objections | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 323/03

Euro exchange rates — 30 September 2020

8

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2020/C 323/04

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

9

2020/C 323/05

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

10

2020/C 323/06

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

11

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 323/07 | Publication of the single document referred to in Article 94(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the reference to the publication of the product specification for a name in the wine sector | 12 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 323/07

Publication of the single document referred to in Article 94(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the reference to the publication of the product specification for a name in the wine sector

12

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (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

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/1

---

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Commission Guidance on the implementation of EU rules on definition and prevention of the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence

(2020/C 323/01)

1.   Introduction

The EU has developed a comprehensive and multidisciplinary policy framework to address migrant smuggling, including by setting out and implementing the first EU action plan (2015-2020) to tackle this criminal activity (1). Its core objective is to disrupt the business model of criminal organisations that put migrants’ lives at risk and threaten our societies’ security, while avoiding risks of criminalising those who provide assistance to migrants in distress. This objective remains a key political priority for the EU.

The ‘Facilitators Package’ (2) constitutes the legal framework that the EU adopted in 2002 to define the offence of facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit or residence in the EU and to set out related criminal sanctions.

In particular, Directive 2002/90/EC – the Facilitation Directive – obliges Member States to appropriately penalise anyone who, in breach of laws, intentionally assists a non-EU country national to enter or transit through an EU country, or for financial gain, a non-EU country national to reside in an EU country.

At the same time, when defining the offence, the Directive provides for the possibility for Member States to exempt humanitarian assistance from being criminalised.

In 2017, the Commission carried out the first comprehensive evaluation (‘the evaluation’) of the Facilitators Package (3). Acknowledging the concerns related to possible criminalisation of humanitarian assistance, the evaluation pointed in particular to a perceived lack of legal certainty and to the lack of appropriate communication between authorities and those operating on the ground. While it considered a legal revision at that stage to be unnecessary, the Commission proposed a more effective exchange of knowledge and good practices between prosecutors, law enforcement and civil society to address the practical consequences of those weaknesses.

As a follow-up to this evaluation, in 2018 the Commission launched a process of regular consultation with civil society and EU agencies, including the Fundamental Rights Agency and Eurojust, to build up knowledge and gather evidence in order to identify the issues linked to interpreting and applying the Facilitation Directive. In July 2018, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on guidelines for Member States to prevent humanitarian assistance from being criminalised (4), calling upon the Commission ‘to adopt guidelines for Member States specifying which forms of facilitation should not be criminalised, in order to ensure clarity and uniformity in the implementation of the current acquis...’.

Since 2018, this consultation process and various exchanges with stakeholders have pointed to an increasingly difficult environment for NGOs and individuals when assisting migrants, including when they carry out search and rescue operations at sea. Latest research that the Commission has discussed with NGOs suggests that acts carried out for humanitarian purposes have been increasingly criminalised since 2015 (5). Data collected confirmed that judicial prosecutions and investigations against individuals on grounds related to the offence of facilitation have increased in the EU since 2015. The research found 60 investigation and prosecution cases – mostly on facilitation of entry – in 10 Member States between 2015 and 2019, with cases peaking in 2018. The cases analysed as part of the research concern mostly volunteers, human rights defenders, crews of boats involved in search and rescue operations at sea, but also ordinary members of the public, family members, journalists, mayors and religious leaders. However, as pointed out in the evaluation and in the European Parliament’s Resolution, the lack of reliable and comparable national criminal statistics remains an issue, in particular on facilitation of irregular migration offences (6).

Taking into account the European Parliament’s Resolution and the results of the consultation process, the Commission considers that guidance on interpreting the Facilitation Directive is needed to provide greater clarity on its scope of application. It is understood that this guidance does not prejudge the competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is responsible for the final interpretation of EU law.

2.   The legal framework against migrant smuggling at international and European level

2.1.   The international law framework: the United Nations Protocol on the smuggling of migrants

The United Nations Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (7) (‘the Protocol’) was adopted in 2000 and entered into force in 2004. It was the first international instrument to provide a common definition of migrant smuggling. The EU acceded to the Protocol in 2006 (8) and all EU Member States, except Ireland, have ratified it.

Smuggling of migrants is defined in Article 3 of the Protocol as ‘the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a state party of which the person is not a national’ .

In its 2017 paper on the Concept of ‘Financial or Other Material Benefit’ in the Smuggling of Migrants Protocol (9), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) describes such financial or other material benefit as the very purpose of migrant smuggling, ‘the reason behind the growing involvement of organized criminal groups in conduct that often puts the lives of vulnerable migrants in great jeopardy’. UNODC notes that ‘[t]he financial or other material benefits associated with migrant smuggling are fuelling a trade that turns human suffering and resilience against unfair odds, into enormous and unscrupulously procured profits’ (10). The UNODC paper further describes the ‘phenomenon of facilitated illegal entry with no benefit motive’ as ‘an act that falls beyond the scope of the Protocol’ (11).

UNODC concludes that, even if ‘the Protocol does not prevent States from creating criminal offences outside its scope – for example facilitation of illegal entry or illegal stay’, it ‘does not seek and cannot be used as the legal basis for the prosecution of humanitarian actors’ (12). It recalls that the Legislative Guide for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols (13)‘elaborates on this theme, affirming that the reference to “financial or other material benefit” was indeed intended to exclude groups with purely political or social motives’. On this basis, UNODC urges countries ‘to include safeguards to ensure that faith-based organizations, civil society and individuals acting without any purpose to obtain a financial or other material benefit are excluded from the application of smuggling offences while ensuring that such exclusion cannot be used as a loophole to escape justice’ (14).

2.2.   The EU legal framework: the Facilitators Package

Migrant smuggling is increasingly associated with serious human rights violations and loss of lives, in particular when it occurs at sea (15). The facilitation of irregular migration takes various forms, such as:

| — | actually transporting or managing the transportation of anyone who does not have a right to enter or transit through a country of which they are not a national; |
| --- | --- |

—

actually transporting or managing the transportation of anyone who does not have a right to enter or transit through a country of which they are not a national;

| — | fabricating and/or providing fake documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

fabricating and/or providing fake documents;

| — | arranging marriages of convenience. |
| --- | --- |

—

arranging marriages of convenience.

These activities are carried out by organised criminal networks or individuals and generate substantial profits for them. Besides, an increase in the number of irregular migrants reaching the EU sustains the demand not only for activities that facilitate entry into the EU, but also for those related to irregular residence. The facilitation of irregular entry, transit and (when conducted for financial gain) residence are penalised under the Facilitators Package.

The general objective of the Facilitators Package is to help fight against both irregular migration, by penalising facilitation in connection with unauthorised crossing of the border, and organised crime networks that endanger migrants’ lives. Under Article 1(1) of the Facilitation Directive, anyone who intentionally helps a non-EU national to enter, transit, or (when conducted for financial gain) reside in the EU in breach of immigration law, must be penalised.

As detailed in the evaluation, the Protocol and the Facilitators Package remain coherent with each other, despite some differences (16). The evaluation recalls that ‘as Parties to the Protocol, both the EU and its Member States are bound to apply it including when passing or implementing legislation within its scope’ and that ‘the Protocol strengthened the EU position on tackling migrant smuggling as a form of organised crime’.

The facilitation offence as set out in Article 1(1) of the Facilitation Directive is indeed broader than in the Protocol insofar as financial gain is not a constituent component of the offence of facilitation of irregular entry or transit. Financial gain — together with participation in a criminal organisation or endangering the lives of the people who are the subjects of the offence — is listed under the aggravating circumstances set out in Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA.

However, Article 1(2) of the Directive provides for the possibility to exempt facilitation of unauthorised entry and transit from being criminalised, when carried out for humanitarian assistance purposes. According to this provision, ‘Any Member State may decide not to impose sanctions with regard to the behaviour defined in paragraph 1(a) by applying its national law and practice for cases where the aim of the behaviour is to provide humanitarian assistance to the person concerned’.

Leaving aside references to general criminal law provisions, such as those concerning acts that had to be carried out to avert a dangerous situation (17), only eight Member States include in national law an exemption from punishment for facilitating unauthorised entry and/or transit in order to provide some form of humanitarian assistance (18). An examination of the legislation of these Member States reveals a variety of national interpretations of the Directive, each taking account of the national legal context.

Belgium and Spain have adopted almost verbatim the language in the Directive on including humanitarian assistance as a reason for non-incrimination, while other Member States used different constructions.

Croatia sets out explicit exemptions for:

| — | facilitating entry – to save lives, prevent injuries, provide emergency medical assistance and humanitarian assistance in accordance with special legislation – and |
| --- | --- |

—

facilitating entry – to save lives, prevent injuries, provide emergency medical assistance and humanitarian assistance in accordance with special legislation – and

| — | facilitating residence – on humanitarian grounds, without intending to prevent or postpone measures being taken to secure return. |
| --- | --- |

—

facilitating residence – on humanitarian grounds, without intending to prevent or postpone measures being taken to secure return.

In Greece, captains and masters of ships and aircrafts as well as drivers of any means of transport are not incriminated for providing assistance by rescuing someone at sea or by transporting someone who needs international protection in accordance with international law.

Italy adopted an explicit provision that recalls Article 54 of the Italian Penal Code, with a general clause that does not criminalise activities aimed at:

| — | preventing those involved in the action from being seriously harmed; |
| --- | --- |

—

preventing those involved in the action from being seriously harmed;

| — | rescuing and/or offering humanitarian help to foreigners present on Italian territory. |
| --- | --- |

—

rescuing and/or offering humanitarian help to foreigners present on Italian territory.

Finland takes into account someone’s humanitarian motives or their motives as regards close family relations, as well as the circumstances related to the safety of the foreigner in their home country or country of permanent residence.

In France, following a judgment from the Constitutional Council (19) and a subsequent amendment made to the relevant provisions, relatives and anyone providing legal, linguistic or social advice, or any type of assistance for exclusively humanitarian purposes, have been exempted from criminalisation as regards facilitating transit or residence, although not for facilitating entry.

In Malta, when an individual helps someone in immediate danger to land on and/or transit through its territory, it is possible not to institute proceedings if such acts have been carried out to provide humanitarian assistance (20).

The power to assess, in light of a case’s circumstances, whether an act falls under an exemption as set out in national law rests with the judicial authorities, which have to strike the right balance between different interests and values at play (21).

3.   Scope of application of Article 1 of the Facilitation Directive

In view of the general spirit and objective of the Facilitation Directive, it is clear that it cannot be construed as a way to allow humanitarian activity that is mandated by law to be criminalised, such as search and rescue operations at sea, regardless how the Facilitation Directive is applied under national law.

According to the international law of the sea, States have an obligation to require shipmasters flying their flag, insofar as they can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers, to provide assistance to people or vessels in distress at sea. This principle is enshrined in:

| — | the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (22); |
| --- | --- |

—

the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (22);

| — | the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (23); and |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (23); and

| — | the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (24) (SAR). |
| --- | --- |

—

the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (24) (SAR).

In addition, the applicable legal framework includes treaties related to maritime traffic and International Maritime Organization (IMO) resolutions (25).

Moreover, the duty of countries to set out the obligation for shipmasters to assist any individual, vessel or aircraft in distress at sea is recognised as a principle of customary international law. Therefore, it is binding on all countries.

Everyone involved in search and rescue activities must observe the instructions received from the coordinating authority when intervening in search and rescue events, in accordance with general principles and applicable rules of international maritime and human rights law. Criminalisation of non-governmental organisations or any other non-state actors that carry out search and rescue operations while complying with the relevant legal framework amounts to a breach of international law, and therefore is not permitted by EU law.

In conclusion, when Article 1 of the Facilitation Directive criminalises the facilitation of unauthorised entry and transit, while giving Member States the possibility not to impose sanctions in cases where the purpose of the activity is to provide humanitarian assistance, it does not refer to humanitarian assistance mandated by law, as this cannot be criminalised.

4.   Guidance

In light of the considerations above, in the Commission’s view, Article 1 of the Facilitation Directive must be interpreted as follows:

| i) | humanitarian assistance that is mandated by law cannot and must not be criminalised; |
| --- | --- |

i)

humanitarian assistance that is mandated by law cannot and must not be criminalised;

| ii) | in particular, the criminalisation of NGOs or any other non-state actors that carry out search and rescue operations at sea, while complying with the relevant legal framework, amounts to a breach of international law, and therefore is not permitted by EU law; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

in particular, the criminalisation of NGOs or any other non-state actors that carry out search and rescue operations at sea, while complying with the relevant legal framework, amounts to a breach of international law, and therefore is not permitted by EU law;

| iii) | where applicable, assessment of whether an act falls within the concept of ‘humanitarian assistance’ in Article 1(2) of the Directive – a concept that cannot be construed in a manner that would allow an act mandated by law to be criminalised – should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

iii)

where applicable, assessment of whether an act falls within the concept of ‘humanitarian assistance’ in Article 1(2) of the Directive – a concept that cannot be construed in a manner that would allow an act mandated by law to be criminalised – should be carried out on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the relevant circumstances.

5.   Policy Recommendation

NGOs and individuals in the EU providing humanitarian assistance to migrants have expressed growing concerns over recent years (26). Rescue operations at sea, as well as support given to migrants on the move, be it at borders or within the territory of a Member State, are reportedly carried out in a context of tension with national or local authorities, with rescuers and volunteers fearing undue administrative pressure and sanctions (27).

In its Resolution (28) on the issue, the European Parliament called on Member States ‘to transpose the humanitarian assistance exemption provided for in the Facilitation Directive’.

Recalling that EU law does not intend to criminalise humanitarian assistance, the Commission has taken stock of the situation since the evaluation of the Facilitators Package. In light of this, the Commission invites Member States that have not already done so to use the possibility provided for in Article 1(2) of the Facilitation Directive, which allows them to distinguish between activities carried out for the purpose of humanitarian assistance and activities that aim to facilitate irregular entry or transit, and allows for the exclusion of the former from criminalisation.

.

---

(1)  COM(2015) 385 final of 27.5.2015.

(2)  Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, p. 17) and Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA of 28 November 2002 on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (OJ L 328, 5.12.2002, p. 1). These instruments were adopted together and are commonly referred to as the ‘Facilitators Package’.

(3)  REFIT Evaluation of the EU legal framework against facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence: The Facilitators Package (Directive 2002/90/EC and Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA), SWD (2017) 117 final.

(4)  2019/2769(RSP).

(5)  Lina Vosyliūtė & Carmine Conte, ‘Crackdown on NGOs and volunteers helping refugees and other migrants’, Research Social Platform on Migration and Asylum (ReSOMA), Final Synthetic Report, June 2019, p. 32. The monitoring exercise has been carried out by the Migration Policy Group through ReSOMA’s collaborative and participatory process involving experts from NGOs, researchers and other stakeholders. This exercise was based on the case monitoring already carried out by Open Democracy, the Institute of Race Relations and the update 2018 study of Centre for European Policy Studies on the Facilitation Directive. The ReSOMA project has been funded through the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

(6)  Following the evaluation, Eurostat collected data on migrant smuggling offences from Member States as part of a pilot collection for the reference years 2015, 2016 and 2017, while the data collection for the 2018 reference year was included in the annual questionnaire sent by Eurostat to collect criminal statistics from Member States.

(7)  https://www.unodc.org/documents/middleeastandnorthafrica/smuggling-migrants/SoM_Protocol_English.pdf

(8)  See: i) Council Decision 2006/616/EC of 24 July 2006 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime concerning the provisions of the Protocol, in so far as the provisions of this Protocol fall within the scope of Articles 179 and 181a of the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ L 262, 22.9.2006, p. 24); and ii) Council Decision 2006/617/EC of 24 July 2006 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime concerning the provisions of the Protocol, in so far as the provisions of the Protocol fall within the scope of Part III, Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community (OJ L 262, 22.9.2006, p. 34).

(9)  https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/Issue-Papers/UNODC_Issue_Paper_The_Profit_Element_in_the_Smuggling_of_Migrants_Protocol.pdf

(10)  Preface, iii.

(11)  See note 9.

(12)  See note 9, p. 14, UNODC also recalls that ’according to the Travaux Préparatoires, the intention of the drafters was to exclude the activities of those who provided support to migrants for humanitarian reasons or on the basis of close family ties. In the words of the Interpretative Note attached to the relevant provision, “it was not the intention of the Protocol to criminalize the activities of family members or support groups such as religious or non-governmental organizations”’.

(13)  UNODC, Legislative Guides for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols thereto UN Sales No. E.05.V.2 (2004), p. 13, para. 26.

(14)  See note 13, p. 71.

(15)  REFIT Evaluation of the EU legal framework against facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence cit., p. 4.

(16)  See note 15, p. 31.

(17)  See Criminalisation of migrants in an irregular situation and of persons engaging with them, FRA (2014), p. 10.

(18)  Belgium, Greece, Spain, Finland, France, Croatia, Italy and Malta in the REFIT Evaluation of the EU legal framework against facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence cit., p. 15, as well as Article L622-4 of the French Code on Foreigners, as amended by law n°2018-778 of 10 September 2018, and Article 43, Para 2, Item 2 of Croatia’s Law on Foreigners, as adopted in 2017.

(19)  In its Decision n° 2018-717/718 QPC of 6 July 2018, the French Constitutional Council ruled that the possibility to assist people, for humanitarian purposes, stems from the constitutional principle of fraternity, regardless of these people’s legal status in the country. Moreover, it considered that the domestic provision that exempted certain types of conduct could only be interpreted as also applying to any other type of assistance provided for humanitarian purposes. However, it did not extend its ruling to facilitating entry, which ‘necessarily entails an illicit situation’, contrary to facilitating transit.

(20)  REFIT Evaluation of the EU legal framework against facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence cit., pp. 14-15.

(21)  On the need to strike the right balance between the need to protect public policy and prevent crimes, on one hand, and to take account of the humanitarian purpose of the act, on the other, see, for example, with reference to Article L. 622-1 of the French Code on entry and stay of foreigners and right to asylum, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 10.11.2011, n° 29681/08, Mallah v. France.

(22)  https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

(23)  http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

The SOLAS Convention (Chapter V – Safety of Navigation) obliges the master of a ship at sea, which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, to proceed with all speed to their assistance. This obligation to provide assistance applies regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which they are found. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable to proceed to their assistance or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary, the master must enter in the logbook the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress. Taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, he must inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly. The Convention mandates contracting governments to coordinate and cooperate in assisting the shipmaster to deliver people rescued at sea to a safe place. It also provides that the owner, the charterer, the company operating the ship or any other person must not prevent or restrict the master of the ship from taking or executing any decision, which in the master’s professional judgement is necessary for safety of life at sea.

(24)  http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-Maritime-Search-and-Rescue-(SAR).aspx

The SAR Convention (Annex) obligates Parties to assist the shipmaster in delivering people rescued at sea to a safe place and requires maritime rescue coordination centres to have appropriate operating procedures for initiating the process of identifying the most suitable places for disembarking people found in distress at sea.

(25)  At its 78th session, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC 78, in 2004) of the IMO adopted important amendments to Chapter V of the SOLAS Convention and to Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the Annex to the SAR Convention. These amendments entered into force on 1 July 2006. At the same session, the MSC adopted a set of operational guidelines. The purpose of these amendments and the current guidelines is to help ensure that people in distress are assisted, while minimising the inconvenience to assisting ships and ensuring the continued integrity of search and rescue services.

(26)  In particular, see i) the thematic Study on behalf of the Expert Council on NGO Law of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe, ‘Using criminal law to restrict the work of NGOs supporting refugees and other migrants in Council of Europe member states’, December 2019; ii) Lina Vosyliūtė & Carmine Conte, ‘Crackdown on NGOs and volunteers helping refugees and other migrants’, ReSOMA, cit.; Sergio Carrera, Lina Vosyliūtė, Stephanie Smialowski, Jennifer Allsopp and Gabriella Sanchez, ‘Update Study “Fit for purpose?” The Facilitation Directive and the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants’, Study for the EP Petitions Committee (PETI), European Parliament, December 2018; iii) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), ‘Fundamental Rights Considerations: NGO Ships Involved in Search and Rescue in the Mediterranean and Criminal Investigations’, October 2018 ; iv) FRA, ‘2019 update - NGO ships involved in search and rescue in the Mediterranean and criminal investigations’, June 2019; v) ‘Punishing Compassion. Solidarity on trial in fortress Europe’, Amnesty International, March 2020.

(27)  REFIT Evaluation of the EU legal framework against facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence, cit.

(28)  2019/2769(RSP), cit.

---

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9778 — TUI AG/RCCL/Hapag-Lloyd Cruises)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 323/02)

On 24 June 2020, 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 English 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 32020M9778. 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 32020M9778. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 September 2020

(2020/C 323/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1708 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,76 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4462 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,91235 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5713 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0804 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 162,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,1008 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,233 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 365,53 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5462 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8725 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,0990 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6438 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5676 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0742 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7799 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6035 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 368,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,7092 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9720 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5565 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 497,84 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8653 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,774 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 91,7763 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,079 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,6308 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 26,1848 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,2990 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1708

JPY

Japanese yen

123,76

DKK

Danish krone

7,4462

GBP

Pound sterling

0,91235

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5713

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0804

ISK

Iceland króna

162,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,1008

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,233

HUF

Hungarian forint

365,53

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5462

RON

Romanian leu

4,8725

TRY

Turkish lira

9,0990

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6438

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5676

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0742

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7799

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6035

KRW

South Korean won

1 368,51

ZAR

South African rand

19,7092

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9720

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5565

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 497,84

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8653

PHP

Philippine peso

56,774

RUB

Russian rouble

91,7763

THB

Thai baht

37,079

BRL

Brazilian real

6,6308

MXN

Mexican peso

26,1848

INR

Indian rupee

86,2990

---

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

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/9

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 323/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 25 June 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 254 |
| Decision No | 064/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | All |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 - Amendments to the employee share options tax scheme |
| Legal basis | Norwegian Tax Act section 5-14 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Aid to small and micro-enterprises |
| Form of aid | Tax exemption |
| Budget | NOK 370 million annually (total budget of scheme as amended) |
| Duration | 2020 - 2029 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministry of Finance |
| P.O Box 8008 Dep |
| 0030 Oslo |
| Norway |

Date of adoption of the decision

25 June 2020

Case No

85 254

Decision No

064/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Region

All

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 - Amendments to the employee share options tax scheme

Legal basis

Norwegian Tax Act section 5-14

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Aid to small and micro-enterprises

Form of aid

Tax exemption

Budget

NOK 370 million annually (total budget of scheme as amended)

Duration

2020 - 2029

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministry of Finance

P.O Box 8008 Dep

0030 Oslo

Norway

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/.

---

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/10

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 323/05)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 26 June 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 318 |
| Decision No | 065/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | Whole territory of Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 Amendments and prolongation of grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover |
| Legal basis | Act on a temporary grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Compensate for damages to undertakings caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to secure employment and ensure a faster recovery of the economy after the crisis |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | Estimated NOK 30 billion |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration | The prolonged scheme applies to loss suffered from 1 March 2020 until 31 August 2020 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, as well as production, transmission, distribution and trade of power and financial institutions, private kindergartens and airlines |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Norwegian Tax Administration |
| Postboks 9200 |
| Grønland |
| 0134 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

26 June 2020

Case No

85 318

Decision No

065/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Region

Whole territory of Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 Amendments and prolongation of grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover

Legal basis

Act on a temporary grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Compensate for damages to undertakings caused by the COVID-19 outbreak to secure employment and ensure a faster recovery of the economy after the crisis

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

Estimated NOK 30 billion

Intensity

100 %

Duration

The prolonged scheme applies to loss suffered from 1 March 2020 until 31 August 2020

Economic sectors

All sectors except for companies engaged in petroleum extraction and production, as well as production, transmission, distribution and trade of power and financial institutions, private kindergartens and airlines

Name and address of the granting authority

The Norwegian Tax Administration

Postboks 9200

Grønland

0134 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/11

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 323/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 26 June 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85 291 |
| Decision No | 066/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | 2021 extension of the production grant scheme for news and current affairs media |
| Legal basis | Regulation No 332 of 25 March 2014 on production grants for news and current affairs media |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Media diversity and plurality |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | NOK 370 million |
| Duration | 1.1.2021-31.12.2021 |
| Economic sectors | Media |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Norwegian Media Authority |
| Nygata 4 |
| N-1607 Fredrikstad |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

26 June 2020

Case No

85 291

Decision No

066/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

2021 extension of the production grant scheme for news and current affairs media

Legal basis

Regulation No 332 of 25 March 2014 on production grants for news and current affairs media

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Media diversity and plurality

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

NOK 370 million

Duration

1.1.2021-31.12.2021

Economic sectors

Media

Name and address of the granting authority

The Norwegian Media Authority

Nygata 4

N-1607 Fredrikstad

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 1.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/12

---

Publication of the single document referred to in Article 94(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the reference to the publication of the product specification for a name in the wine sector

(2020/C 323/07)

This publication confers the right to oppose the application pursuant to Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) within two months from the date of this publication.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘PONIKVE’

PDO-HR-02087

Date of application: 3.8.2015

1.   Name to be registered

Ponikve

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine products

| 1. | Wine |
| --- | --- |

1.

Wine

| 15. | Wine from raisined grapes |
| --- | --- |

15.

Wine from raisined grapes

4.   Description of the wine(s)

Wine – white wine

Wines produced from the Rukatac and Pošip bijeli varieties, which are crystal clear, greenish-yellow to yellow in colour, with a moderately high to high alcohol content, a high level of extract, low acidity, a full and balanced taste and a typical fruity aroma.

The maximum permitted sulphur dioxide content is 200 mg/L for wines with up to 5 g/L of residual sugar, and 250 mg/L for wines with over 5 g/L of residual sugar.

The other analytical properties are in line with the applicable definitions in the EU regulations and Croatian law.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | 12 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | 18 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | 250 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

12

Minimum total acidity

4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

18

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

250

Wine – rosé wine

These wines are produced from the Plavac mali crni variety. Rosé wines are of a moderately to highly intense pink colour. Their aroma is dominated by fruity notes reminiscent of citrus fruit and rosehip, mineral and herbal notes. They have a full, harmonious and fruity taste.

The maximum permitted sulphur dioxide content is 200 mg/L for wines with up to 5 g/L of residual sugar, and 250 mg/L for wines with over 5 g/L of residual sugar.

The other analytical properties are in line with the applicable definitions in the EU regulations and Croatian law.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | 12 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | 18 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | 250 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

12

Minimum total acidity

4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

18

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

250

Wine – red wine

These wines are produced from the Plavac mali crni variety. The wines have a purplish dark-red colour with a strong reflection when young. As the wines age, the colour changes, turning dark ruby red with dark brown and red hues in older wines. They have a complex aroma of dark fruit (cherries, sour cherries, plums) with hints of herbal notes. Taste: full, layered, with a moderately high to high alcohol content, a very high level of extract, pronounced tannins, from smooth to highly astringent.

The maximum permitted sulphur dioxide content is 150 mg/L for wines with up to 5 g/L of residual sugar, and 200 mg/L for wines with over 5 g/L of residual sugar.

The other analytical properties are in line with the applicable definitions in the EU regulations and Croatian law.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | 13 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | 20 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | 200 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

13

Minimum total acidity

4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

20

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

200

Wine from raisined grapes

The wines may be white or red. They have more intense hues of yellow (or of a black to dark-copper colour), a high alcohol content and a highly complex scent of overripe grapes and berry fruit. They have a full, fruity taste.

The maximum permitted sulphur dioxide content is 200 mg/L for wines with up to 50 g/l of residual sugar, and 300 g/L for wines with over 50 g/l of residual sugar. The other analytical properties are in line with the applicable definitions in the EU regulations and Croatian law.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | 9 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | 30 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | 300 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

9

Minimum total acidity

4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

30

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

300

5.   Wine making practices

a.   Essential oenological practices

Vine training

Cultural practice

Throughout the ‘Ponikve’ PDO region, vines are trained exclusively using the bush technique, with no trellis.

Vineyard care

Cultural practice

The grapes are harvested manually and placed in boxes.

Wine

Relevant restrictions on making the wines

The wine may not be fortified or sweetened, acidified or de-acidified.

Wine from raisined grapes

Relevant restrictions on making the wines

The grapes used to make this type of wine are obtained by drying them naturally in the sun, on the vines or by picking them and arranging them on dry-stone walls or piles of stones, in lofts, on reed pallets or in wooden crates, at room temperature. The grapes used to make this wine must have at least 130° on the Oechsle scale, and there is no upper limit.

b.   Maximum yields

11 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The ‘Ponikve’ protected designation of origin covers the Ponikve wine-growing site, located in the cadastral municipality of Boljenovići on the Pelješac peninsula, in the vicinity of the town of Ston. The site is located within the Pelješac wine-growing area in the Srednja i Južna Dalmacija [central and southern Dalmatia] subregion. The ‘Ponikve’ PDO area extends from Prapratno bay in the south-east to the locality of Sparagovići in the north-west. The northern limit of the Ponikve site is formed by the natural boundary of Mount Ilija, whereas its southern limit is formed by the D414 Ston–Orebić road.

7.   Main wine grapes variety(ies)

Maraština - Rukatac, Maraškin, Mareština, Krizol, Višana, Malvasia del Chianti, Malvasia lunga, Pavlos

Plavac mali crni - Plavac mali, Plavac veliki, Crljenak mali, Crljenac, Pagadebit crni, Zelenka

Pošip bijeli - Pošip, Pošipak, Pošipica

8.   Description of the link(s)

Natural factors

Soil, relief, climate

The ‘Ponikve’ PDO area has mild, humid winters and hot, dry summers typical of a Mediterranean climate. The fragmented relief and steep slopes prevent humid air from stagnating and frosts from forming. A mountain belt (Mount Ilija) extends on the northern side, preventing the direct influx of cold, northerly winds. The average annual temperature is about 16 °C. The minimum air temperature is several degrees below freezing point. The lowest recorded temperature was in February 1985 (-5,8 °C), and the highest recorded temperature was in August 2000 (36,7 °C). The proximity of the sea moderates the fluctuations in temperature. The annual amount of precipitation is approximately 1 050 mm (30-year data for Dubrovnik). The highest level of precipitation is in autumn and winter, and the lowest is in summer. There are two dominant winds: i) the Sirocco, or ‘Jugo’, which is warm and humid, ii) the Bora, which is a very strong, cold northerly wind. The constant breeze contributes to the low humidity of the air around the leaves and bunches of grapes, which helps to reduce the impact of fungal diseases at this location.

The ‘Ponikve’ PDO area is situated in a mountainous-hilly area with relatively small narrow valleys and polje-type depressions. The relief is typically karstic. The vineyards are mainly located on slopes with various degrees of incline and exposure to the sun. The specificity of the soils in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area lies in the dolomitic limestone or magnesium calcite, which constitutes the basic substratum. That parent substrate is also composed of ordinary limestone in places. Various types of soil have developed on those substrata, but they are mainly light, sandy and permeable, with physical characteristics that are highly conducive to the cultivation of vines. The carbonate content is very high in places. The terrain has been shaped for wine-growing by the creation of terraces, which is why the soils are known as anthropomorphic terrace soils. The terra rossa or brown soils of this area differ from typical terra rossa soils in their relatively high sand content (about 10 %) and their slightly lower content of clay particles. The water capacity of the soils is moderate, but the ascension of humidity in the soils and their shallow tilling make it possible to retain a certain level of humidity, thereby mitigating the water stress during the months of drought. Soils are shallow in places in their initial stage of development. The proportion of bedrock can be quite high (approximately 10-40 %). Older soils are more developed and deeper. They are mainly loamy to sandy-clayey soils with a higher capacity for water retention and thus a greater tolerance to drought than younger soils. The mineral composition of the soil has a slightly higher magnesium and calcium content. The soil’s high level of potassium is an important factor in the grapes’ low total acidity.

Human factors

Terraces and dry-stone walls

Most of the vineyards in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area have been established by the creation of terraces on the steep slopes, thus reducing the impact of soil erosion. The sole objective of the creation of terraces in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area is to reduce the slope of the ground in order to facilitate the tilling of the vineyards and especially to combat soil erosion. The terraced vineyards are composed of several small terraced areas of various sizes, configurations and inclines. The terraces are formed by the construction of stone walls (dry-stone walls). The dry-stone walls can differ in width and height, depending on the amount of stone in the ground. Through the construction of vineyards in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area, the soil is cleared of stone, a sufficient quantity of soil is obtained for the future vineyard, and stone becomes a highly prized construction material that is never superfluous.

The ‘Ponikve’ PDO area also contains vineyards that are bordered by dry-stone walls resembling terraces. Vineyards of this kind are constructed on flat areas, in which case the sole purpose of the dry-stone walls is to indicate the limits of the vineyard or to store excess stone. As well as having a specific architecture, the dry-stone walls also form a particular habitat for many Mediterranean plants and animals.

The vineyards in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area are not irrigated, since they withstand dry periods very well thanks to the specific structure of the soil. Mechanisation is used in the initial phase of clearing and preparing the ground for the construction of vineyards, but thereafter the dry-stone walls are constructed manually in the traditional way, without the use of cement. The terraced vineyards in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area form a specific heritage landscape which is thought to date back to Roman times (eleventh century). They are an excellent example of interaction between people and their environment in order to produce a renowned, high-quality wine and to use and protect the area as well as possible for the production of grapes. All young vineyards set up in this area follow the model of vine cultivation on terraces or in vineyards surrounded by dry-stone walls. For that reason, producers from the ‘Ponikve’ PDO would also like future vineyards in this area to follow this method of vine cultivation, above all to preserve the landscape with its vineyard terraces on slopes or flat ground, and to avoid consolidating the vineyards to form large areas with a high level of mechanisation.

All vineyards in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area are formed by creating terraces on the terrain or by enclosing the vineyards within dry-stone walls. This ensures a usable surface area of soil for cultivating vines and reduces the impact of soil erosion. The vineyards in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area are not irrigated, since they withstand dry periods very well thanks to the specific structure of the soil.

The terraces on steep slopes and the dry-stone walls on flat ground are an excellent example of interaction between people and their environment in order to produce high-quality wines and to use and protect the area for the production of grapes in the best possible way, and above all to preserve the landscape with its recognisable resemblance to ‘stone lace’, while avoiding the consolidation of vineyards to form large areas with a high level of mechanisation.

The fragmented relief and steep slopes prevent humid air from stagnating and frosts from forming. A mountain belt (Mount Ilija) extends on the northern side, preventing the direct influx of cold, northerly winds, while the constant breeze contributes to the low humidity of the air around the leaves and bunches of grapes, which helps to reduce the impact of fungal diseases at this location.

Wine grape varieties

The wines produced in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area are mainly red wines from the Plavac mali crni variety, plus a small quantity of white wines from the Maraština and Pošip bijeli varieties. In economic terms, the Plavac mali crni variety is the most important red grape variety in Croatia. It was created by the spontaneous fertilisation of the indigenous varieties Crljenak kaštelanski and Dobričić. It is a typical variety of southern vineyards and is spread over a small area. The fertilisation of the variety is regular and it produces reliable yields, though the grapes often fail to ripen evenly. As it belongs to the group of very late-ripening varieties, it requires the sunniest positions, often facing the sea, which provide a large amount of light due to their exposure and incline, resulting in wines of an intense colour and strong character. It possesses great resistance to biotic and abiotic stress factors.

The Maraština variety is widespread throughout Dalmatia. It has small to medium-sized grapes of a golden yellow colour with small, brown spots, a low level of juice and thick skins, and the grapes are tightly packed in bunches resembling a body with arms, hence the name. It ripens late in the third quarter. As it is highly sensitive to powdery mildew, it thrives in warm, dry and well-ventilated areas. The Pošip bijeli variety is also found to a lesser extent in the ‘Ponikve’ PDO area. Pošip bijeli is a variety that regularly produces high yields. The bunches of grapes are medium-sized and loosely to moderately packed. The grapes are oval in shape, very sweet and have specific fruity aromas.

Interaction of natural and human factors

The specific impact of environmental factors (relief, soil and climate), which together help to protect this area from the strong northerly winds and to facilitate good ventilation of the leaves of the plantations — reducing the incidence of disease and providing protection from frost — helps to ensure that the vines are well supplied with water without the need for any irrigation. This, together with the impact of human factors — since people have directly contributed to the shaping of the terrain, its sustainable use and the reduction of the impact of erosion through the construction of terraces — has created an inextricable link between the warm, terrace-shaped pieces of ground and the varieties that are typical for this area, ensuring an excellent degree of compatibility for the production of identifiable wines of high quality.

Interactions between natural and human factors and the characteristics of the product

The typical characteristics and the quality of the wines from the Ponikve region are the result of the favourable Mediterranean climate and the specific type of brown soils and terra rossa. The thermal-time sum of more than 2 000 °C makes it possible to ripen varieties of different ripening periods, but especially late-ripening varieties (periods IV and V), such as Plavac mali. The sunny terraces bordered by dry-stone walls form a particular vineyard landscape and provide exceptional conditions for growing indigenous varieties, such as Plavac mali, Rukatac and Pošip. It is very rare for humid air to be trapped in the vineyards due to the constant breeze. This helps to reduce the impact of fungal diseases and fosters the development on the grapes of a specific microflora which contributes to alcoholic fermentation. The total acidity of the grapes, especially those of the Plavac mali variety, is rather low, which is the direct result of the hot Mediterranean climate and the mineral composition of the soil. The soil’s high level of potassium is a particularly important factor in the grapes’ low total acidity. The specific aroma of the wines from the Ponikve region, with dominant notes of berries and mild herbal notes in the red wines and discreet fruity aromas in the white wines, is directly connected to the mineral composition of the soil, especially its high calcium and magnesium content. The full and balanced taste of the wines from the Ponikve region is linked to the soil’s high level of micro-elements, such as iron, manganese or zinc, which play an essential role in the synthesis of numerous biochemical compounds in the grapes. The good balance of micro-elements in the soil makes the wines more full-bodied and enables them to age for many years, which ensures their longevity. The wines of Ponikve are rich in extract, have a high alcohol content and are well-suited to ageing in wood. The warm and dry autumns in Ponikve create favourable conditions for ripening grapes, with the grapes attaining an excellent level of phenolic maturity. The grapes can be harvested late and wines can be produced from raisined grapes.

The grapes used to make this type of wine are obtained by drying them naturally in the sun, on the vines or by picking them and arranging them on dry-stone walls or piles of stones, in lofts, on reed pallets or in wooden crates, at room temperature.

The most important part of the process of producing wines from raisined grapes is to ensure that the grapes are properly dried by natural methods, which is made possible by the favourable climatic conditions, with warm, dry autumns and favourable winds, like the Bora. An initial selection is made in the vineyard, where it is important to choose the sections of the vineyard or the bunches of grapes which are most suitable for drying. Good vineyard locations, suitable soil, a favourable climate, correct vineyard care and the selection of the right bunches of grapes for drying ensure successful natural drying of the grapes. The wines produced from these grapes have aromas of dried, dark fruit and a good balance between alcohol, extract, acidity and residual sugar.

9.   Essential further conditions

—

Link to the product specification

https://poljoprivreda.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/hrana/zastita_oznaka_izvrsnosti_vina/Specifikacija-proizvoda-Ponikve.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

---