# Official Journal C 350/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 350 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 574 October 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 350

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 574 October 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 350/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7364 — Blackstone/Lombard) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2014/C 350/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7354 — ADM/WILD Flavors/WDI) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2014/C 350/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7376 — Droege/Weltbild) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 350/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7364 — Blackstone/Lombard) (
  1
  )

1

1

2014/C 350/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7354 — ADM/WILD Flavors/WDI) (
  1
  )

1

1

2014/C 350/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7376 — Droege/Weltbild) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2014/C 350/04 | Council Decision of 25 September 2014 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency | 3 |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 350/05 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| 2014/C 350/06 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents — Rapporteur: Bulgaria | 5 |
| 2014/C 350/07 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents (AT.39939) | 6 |
| 2014/C 350/08 | Summary of Commission Decision of 29 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — (Case AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents) (notified under document number C(2014) 2891 final) | 8 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2014/C 350/04

Council Decision of 25 September 2014 appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency

3

European Commission

2014/C 350/05

Euro exchange rates

4

2014/C 350/06

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents — Rapporteur: Bulgaria

5

2014/C 350/07

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents (AT.39939)

6

2014/C 350/08

Summary of Commission Decision of 29 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — (Case AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents) (notified under document number C(2014) 2891 final)

notified under document number C(2014) 2891 final

8

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 350/09 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Brazil and the People’s Republic of China | 11 |
| 2014/C 350/10 | Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 22 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 350/11 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7307 — Electricity Supply Board/Vodafone Ireland/JV) (
  1
  ) | 23 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 350/12 | 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 | 24 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 350/09

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Brazil and the People’s Republic of China

11

2014/C 350/10

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

22

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 350/11

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7307 — Electricity Supply Board/Vodafone Ireland/JV) (
  1
  )

1

23

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2014/C 350/12

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

24

---

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

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7364 — Blackstone/Lombard)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 350/01)

On 26 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 English 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 32014M7364. 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 32014M7364. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7354 — ADM/WILD Flavors/WDI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 350/02)

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 English 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 32014M7354. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7354. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7376 — Droege/Weltbild)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 350/03)

On 24 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 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 32014M7376. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7376. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 25 September 2014

appointing one member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency

(2014/C 350/04)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (1), and in particular Article 79 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that each Member State should nominate a member to the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency and that the Council is to appoint as members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency one representative from each Member State. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that each Member State should nominate a member to the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency and that the Council is to appoint as members of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency one representative from each Member State.

| (2) | The Republic of Croatia became member of the European Union as of 1 July 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Republic of Croatia became member of the European Union as of 1 July 2013.

| (3) | The Government of Croatia has submitted its nomination for a representative, who should therefore be appointed for a period of four years, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Government of Croatia has submitted its nomination for a representative, who should therefore be appointed for a period of four years,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Bojan VIDOVIĆ, of Croatian nationality, born on 22 May 1976, shall be appointed member of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency, for the period from 25 September 2014 to 26 September 2018.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2014.

For the Council

The President

F. GUIDI

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

---

European Commission

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 October 2014

(2014/C 350/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2616 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4441 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78525 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1122 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2089 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1785 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,479 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,17 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1789 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4108 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8755 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4415 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4108 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7900 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6054 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6090 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 338,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2021 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7445 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6390 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 388,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1201 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,609 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 50,1813 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,028 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1441 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9048 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,9877 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2616

JPY

Japanese yen

137,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4441

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78525

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1122

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2089

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1785

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,479

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,17

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1789

RON

Romanian leu

4,4108

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8755

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4415

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4108

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7900

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6054

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6090

KRW

South Korean won

1 338,63

ZAR

South African rand

14,2021

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7445

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6390

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 388,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1201

PHP

Philippine peso

56,609

RUB

Russian rouble

50,1813

THB

Thai baht

41,028

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1441

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9048

INR

Indian rupee

77,9877

---

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

---

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents

Rapporteur: Bulgaria

(2014/C 350/06)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 11 April 2014 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 11 April 2014 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Samsung are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its Statement of Objections. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Samsung are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its Statement of Objections.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Samsung, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Samsung, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/6

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents

(AT.39939)

(2014/C 350/07)

| (1) | Following an ex officio investigation, on 30 January 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Holding GmbH and Samsung Electronics Italia SpA (collectively ‘Samsung’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Following an ex officio investigation, on 30 January 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Holding GmbH and Samsung Electronics Italia SpA (collectively ‘Samsung’).

| (2) | On 21 December 2012, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’), in which it reached the preliminary view that Samsung’s seeking of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple Inc. (‘Apple’) before the courts of various Member States on the basis of its standard essential patents (‘SEPs’) covering the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (‘UMTS’) technology without any objective justification, raised concerns under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 21 December 2012, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’), in which it reached the preliminary view that Samsung’s seeking of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple Inc. (‘Apple’) before the courts of various Member States on the basis of its standard essential patents (‘SEPs’) covering the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (‘UMTS’) technology without any objective justification, raised concerns under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Samsung was granted access to the file via an access to file DVD on 21 December 2012. It replied to the SO in writing on 22 March 2013, after the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’) had extended the initial deadline of 10 weeks. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Samsung was granted access to the file via an access to file DVD on 21 December 2012. It replied to the SO in writing on 22 March 2013, after the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’) had extended the initial deadline of 10 weeks.

| (4) | Upon their request, I decided pursuant to Article 5(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU to allow Apple, HTC Corporation, Nokia GmbH and Google Inc. to be heard as interested third persons. One other company also applied to be heard as an interested third person. However, I considered that that company had not demonstrated to be sufficiently affected by the conduct which is the subject of the proceedings, as it was neither an actual nor a potential licensee of Samsung with respect to the latter’s UMTS SEPs. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Upon their request, I decided pursuant to Article 5(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU to allow Apple, HTC Corporation, Nokia GmbH and Google Inc. to be heard as interested third persons. One other company also applied to be heard as an interested third person. However, I considered that that company had not demonstrated to be sufficiently affected by the conduct which is the subject of the proceedings, as it was neither an actual nor a potential licensee of Samsung with respect to the latter’s UMTS SEPs.

| (5) | Following the admission of Apple as an interested third person, DG Competition informed Samsung of its intention to provide Apple with a non-confidential version of the SO, and accordingly invited Samsung to identify business secrets and other confidential information. Samsung referred to me certain confidentiality claims which DG Competition had rejected, concerning passages in the SO that revealed the preliminary findings of the Commission and Samsung’s defensive strategy. Samsung claimed that disclosure of these passages to Apple would undermine the integrity of the Commission’s investigation, Samsung’s rights of defence and the presumption of innocence to which Samsung is entitled. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Following the admission of Apple as an interested third person, DG Competition informed Samsung of its intention to provide Apple with a non-confidential version of the SO, and accordingly invited Samsung to identify business secrets and other confidential information. Samsung referred to me certain confidentiality claims which DG Competition had rejected, concerning passages in the SO that revealed the preliminary findings of the Commission and Samsung’s defensive strategy. Samsung claimed that disclosure of these passages to Apple would undermine the integrity of the Commission’s investigation, Samsung’s rights of defence and the presumption of innocence to which Samsung is entitled.

| (6) | By decision pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU, I rejected Samsung’s claims for the following reasons. Given the provisional nature of the SO, disclosure to Apple of the Commission’s preliminary findings would not prevent the Commission from altering its objections in favour of Samsung at a later stage of the proceedings, nor deprive Samsung of its right to be heard regarding the matters of fact and law contained in the SO. Even if Apple were to produce the Commission’s preliminary findings before national courts, the latter would be required to take into account the provisional nature of the SO and to ensure, in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, the protection of Samsung’s rights of defence in the context of national proceedings (4). Moreover, in case disclosure of the contested passages led Apple to make any submissions which the Commission intended to rely upon, Samsung would be given access to those submissions or relevant parts thereof and would be given the opportunity to react in writing and/or orally. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

By decision pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU, I rejected Samsung’s claims for the following reasons. Given the provisional nature of the SO, disclosure to Apple of the Commission’s preliminary findings would not prevent the Commission from altering its objections in favour of Samsung at a later stage of the proceedings, nor deprive Samsung of its right to be heard regarding the matters of fact and law contained in the SO. Even if Apple were to produce the Commission’s preliminary findings before national courts, the latter would be required to take into account the provisional nature of the SO and to ensure, in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, the protection of Samsung’s rights of defence in the context of national proceedings (4). Moreover, in case disclosure of the contested passages led Apple to make any submissions which the Commission intended to rely upon, Samsung would be given access to those submissions or relevant parts thereof and would be given the opportunity to react in writing and/or orally.

| (7) | On 27 September 2013, Samsung proposed commitments in order to meet the Commission’s concerns. On 18 October 2013, the Commission published a notice in accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (5), and received 18 responses from third parties. On 3 February 2014, Samsung submitted revised commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 27 September 2013, Samsung proposed commitments in order to meet the Commission’s concerns. On 18 October 2013, the Commission published a notice in accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (5), and received 18 responses from third parties. On 3 February 2014, Samsung submitted revised commitments.

| (8) | The draft decision makes the revised commitments offered by Samsung binding upon it and concludes that in light of these, there are no longer grounds for action on its part, and thus the proceedings in this case should be brought to an end. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The draft decision makes the revised commitments offered by Samsung binding upon it and concludes that in light of these, there are no longer grounds for action on its part, and thus the proceedings in this case should be brought to an end.

| (9) | I have not received any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings with respect to the submitted commitments (6). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

I have not received any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings with respect to the submitted commitments (6).

| (10) | In light of all the above, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In light of all the above, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 28 April 2014.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

3

(4)  Case T-353/94 Postbank v Commission [995] ECR II-921, paragraph 72.

4

Postbank

Commission

(5)  Communication of the Commission published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case AT.39939/Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents (OJ C 302, 18.10.2013, p. 14).

5

(6)  According to Article 15(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, parties to the proceedings offering commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage of the procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights.

6

---

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/8

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 29 April 2014

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.39939 — Samsung — Enforcement of UMTS standard essential patents)

(notified under document number C(2014) 2891 final)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2014/C 350/08)

On 29 April 2014, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   Introduction

| (1) | The decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Decision’) is addressed to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Holding GmbH and Samsung Electronics Italia SpA (collectively ‘Samsung’). Samsung offered commitments in order to address the competition concerns related to Samsung’s seeking of preliminary (interlocutory) and permanent injunctions against Apple Inc. (‘Apple’) before the courts of various Member States on the basis of its UMTS (2) standard essential patents (‘SEPs’) which it has committed to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms during the standard-setting process in the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (‘ETSI’). The Decision makes these commitments legally binding on Samsung. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Decision’) is addressed to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Holding GmbH and Samsung Electronics Italia SpA (collectively ‘Samsung’). Samsung offered commitments in order to address the competition concerns related to Samsung’s seeking of preliminary (interlocutory) and permanent injunctions against Apple Inc. (‘Apple’) before the courts of various Member States on the basis of its UMTS (2) standard essential patents (‘SEPs’) which it has committed to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms during the standard-setting process in the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (‘ETSI’). The Decision makes these commitments legally binding on Samsung.

2.   Procedure

| (2) | On 30 January 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings against Samsung. On 21 December 2012, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections setting out the Commission’s competition concerns. The Statement of Objections constitutes a preliminary assessment for the purposes of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 30 January 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings against Samsung. On 21 December 2012, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections setting out the Commission’s competition concerns. The Statement of Objections constitutes a preliminary assessment for the purposes of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| (3) | On 27 September 2013, Samsung offered initial commitments to meet the concerns expressed to it by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 27 September 2013, Samsung offered initial commitments to meet the concerns expressed to it by the Commission.

| (4) | On 18 October 2013, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3), summarising the case and the initial commitments, and inviting interested third parties to submit their observations. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 18 October 2013, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3), summarising the case and the initial commitments, and inviting interested third parties to submit their observations.

| (5) | On 3 February 2014, Samsung offered revised commitments (‘the commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 3 February 2014, Samsung offered revised commitments (‘the commitments’).

| (6) | On 28 April 2014, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted. On the same date, the Hearing Officer issued his final report. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 28 April 2014, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted. On the same date, the Hearing Officer issued his final report.

3.   Facts

| (7) | Standards ensure compatibility and interoperability of telecom networks and mobile devices. Mobile devices typically implement a large number of telecommunication standards (such as the so-called third generation or ‘3G’ (UMTS) standard). These standards make reference to thousands of technologies, many of which are protected by patents. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Standards ensure compatibility and interoperability of telecom networks and mobile devices. Mobile devices typically implement a large number of telecommunication standards (such as the so-called third generation or ‘3G’ (UMTS) standard). These standards make reference to thousands of technologies, many of which are protected by patents.

| (8) | Patents that are essential to a standard are those that cover technology to which a standard makes reference and that implementers of the standard cannot avoid using in standard-compliant products. These patents are known as SEPs. SEPs are different from patents that are not essential to a standard (‘non-SEPs’). This is because it is normally technically possible for an implementer to design around a non-SEP without sacrificing key functionality. By contrast, an implementer has to use the technology protected by a SEP when manufacturing a standard-compliant product. SEPs can therefore be of great value to their holders. A SEP holder can expect a substantial revenue stream, in particular for SEPs covering standards that are destined to be implemented in numerous products sold to millions of consumers. Once a particular technology has been chosen and incorporated into a widespread standard, alternative competing technologies may disappear from the market. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Patents that are essential to a standard are those that cover technology to which a standard makes reference and that implementers of the standard cannot avoid using in standard-compliant products. These patents are known as SEPs. SEPs are different from patents that are not essential to a standard (‘non-SEPs’). This is because it is normally technically possible for an implementer to design around a non-SEP without sacrificing key functionality. By contrast, an implementer has to use the technology protected by a SEP when manufacturing a standard-compliant product. SEPs can therefore be of great value to their holders. A SEP holder can expect a substantial revenue stream, in particular for SEPs covering standards that are destined to be implemented in numerous products sold to millions of consumers. Once a particular technology has been chosen and incorporated into a widespread standard, alternative competing technologies may disappear from the market.

| (9) | ETSI is one of the three European Standardisation Organisations. ETSI is officially responsible for producing standards and specifications supporting EU and EFTA policies and enabling an internal market in telecommunications. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

ETSI is one of the three European Standardisation Organisations. ETSI is officially responsible for producing standards and specifications supporting EU and EFTA policies and enabling an internal market in telecommunications.

| (10) | The rules of ETSI impose two main obligations on companies participating in the standard-setting process: (i) to inform ETSI of their essential intellectual property rights (‘IP’) in a timely fashion before the adoption of the standard, and (ii) to give a commitment to make their IP available on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The rules of ETSI impose two main obligations on companies participating in the standard-setting process: (i) to inform ETSI of their essential intellectual property rights (‘IP’) in a timely fashion before the adoption of the standard, and (ii) to give a commitment to make their IP available on FRAND terms and conditions.

| (11) | In December 1998, Samsung committed to license its UMTS SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions. When contributing its technology to the UMTS standard, Samsung therefore agreed to: (i) license its UMTS SEPs; and (ii) license them on FRAND terms and conditions. Samsung therefore expects to obtain remuneration for its UMTS SEPs by means of licensing revenue rather than using these patents to seek to exclude others. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

In December 1998, Samsung committed to license its UMTS SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions. When contributing its technology to the UMTS standard, Samsung therefore agreed to: (i) license its UMTS SEPs; and (ii) license them on FRAND terms and conditions. Samsung therefore expects to obtain remuneration for its UMTS SEPs by means of licensing revenue rather than using these patents to seek to exclude others.

| (12) | From 21 April 2011 onwards, Samsung sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple before courts in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, on the basis of certain of its UMTS SEPs. Samsung maintained its injunction actions in the EEA until December 2012, when it announced unilaterally the withdrawal of these actions. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

From 21 April 2011 onwards, Samsung sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple before courts in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, on the basis of certain of its UMTS SEPs. Samsung maintained its injunction actions in the EEA until December 2012, when it announced unilaterally the withdrawal of these actions.

| (13) | The Commission preliminarily concluded that Samsung’s seeking of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple on the basis of its UMTS SEPs, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of any objective justification, raised concerns as to the compatibility of the seeking of such injunctions with Article 102 TFEU. The exceptional circumstances in this case are the UMTS standard-setting process and Samsung’s commitment to license its UMTS SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions. The absence of objective justification relates in particular to the fact that the potential licensee, Apple, was not unwilling to enter into a licence agreement for Samsung’s UMTS SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Commission preliminarily concluded that Samsung’s seeking of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple on the basis of its UMTS SEPs, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of any objective justification, raised concerns as to the compatibility of the seeking of such injunctions with Article 102 TFEU. The exceptional circumstances in this case are the UMTS standard-setting process and Samsung’s commitment to license its UMTS SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions. The absence of objective justification relates in particular to the fact that the potential licensee, Apple, was not unwilling to enter into a licence agreement for Samsung’s UMTS SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions.

4.   Commitments

| (14) | In order to meet the concerns expressed to it by the Commission, Samsung offered commitments pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In order to meet the concerns expressed to it by the Commission, Samsung offered commitments pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| (15) | Samsung commits not to seek injunctions before any court or tribunal in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) for infringement of its SEPs (including all existing and future patents) implemented in smartphones and tablets (‘Mobile SEPs’) against a potential licensee that agrees to, and complies with, a particular licensing framework (‘Licensing Framework’) for the determination of FRAND terms and conditions. The Licensing Framework encompasses either a unilateral licensing agreement covering Samsung’s Mobile SEPs or, if either Samsung or the potential licensee so requests, a cross-licensing agreement covering both Samsung’s Mobile SEPs and certain of the potential licensee’s Mobile SEPs. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Samsung commits not to seek injunctions before any court or tribunal in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) for infringement of its SEPs (including all existing and future patents) implemented in smartphones and tablets (‘Mobile SEPs’) against a potential licensee that agrees to, and complies with, a particular licensing framework (‘Licensing Framework’) for the determination of FRAND terms and conditions. The Licensing Framework encompasses either a unilateral licensing agreement covering Samsung’s Mobile SEPs or, if either Samsung or the potential licensee so requests, a cross-licensing agreement covering both Samsung’s Mobile SEPs and certain of the potential licensee’s Mobile SEPs.

| (16) | The Licensing Framework consists of: (i) a negotiation period of up to 12 months; and (ii) a third party determination of FRAND terms and conditions in the event that no licensing agreement or alternative process for determining FRAND terms and conditions has been agreed upon at the end of the negotiation period. The third party determination of FRAND terms and conditions will consist of the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to court adjudication in order to determine the FRAND terms and conditions of either a unilateral licensing or cross-licensing agreement. In case of disagreement between Samsung and a potential licensee about the venue for the determination of FRAND terms and conditions, the dispute would be submitted to court adjudication. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Licensing Framework consists of: (i) a negotiation period of up to 12 months; and (ii) a third party determination of FRAND terms and conditions in the event that no licensing agreement or alternative process for determining FRAND terms and conditions has been agreed upon at the end of the negotiation period. The third party determination of FRAND terms and conditions will consist of the submission of the dispute to arbitration or to court adjudication in order to determine the FRAND terms and conditions of either a unilateral licensing or cross-licensing agreement. In case of disagreement between Samsung and a potential licensee about the venue for the determination of FRAND terms and conditions, the dispute would be submitted to court adjudication.

| (17) | The Licensing Framework is set out in two annexed ‘invitations to negotiate’ that constitute an integral part of the commitments and form the contractual basis for the application of the commitments between Samsung and a potential licensee. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The Licensing Framework is set out in two annexed ‘invitations to negotiate’ that constitute an integral part of the commitments and form the contractual basis for the application of the commitments between Samsung and a potential licensee.

| (18) | The duration of the commitments will be five years from the date on which Samsung receives formal notification of the Decision. Samsung will also appoint a trustee who will monitor its compliance with the commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The duration of the commitments will be five years from the date on which Samsung receives formal notification of the Decision. Samsung will also appoint a trustee who will monitor its compliance with the commitments.

| (19) | The commitments address the competition concerns expressed in the Statement of Objections adequately as they will ensure that Samsung will not be able to seek injunctions on the basis of its Mobile SEPs against any potential licensee willing to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions. The commitments therefore provide for a ‘safe-harbour’ available to all potential licensees of Samsung’s Mobile SEPs that submit to the Licensing Framework provided for by the commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The commitments address the competition concerns expressed in the Statement of Objections adequately as they will ensure that Samsung will not be able to seek injunctions on the basis of its Mobile SEPs against any potential licensee willing to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions. The commitments therefore provide for a ‘safe-harbour’ available to all potential licensees of Samsung’s Mobile SEPs that submit to the Licensing Framework provided for by the commitments.

| (20) | A potential licensee can also choose not to sign up to the Licensing Framework. In such a case, the potential licensee cannot be automatically regarded as unwilling to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions. Rather, the court or tribunal called upon by Samsung to grant injunctive relief would need to evaluate all the circumstances of the case at hand in order to decide whether a potential licensee is indeed unwilling to enter into an agreement on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

A potential licensee can also choose not to sign up to the Licensing Framework. In such a case, the potential licensee cannot be automatically regarded as unwilling to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions. Rather, the court or tribunal called upon by Samsung to grant injunctive relief would need to evaluate all the circumstances of the case at hand in order to decide whether a potential licensee is indeed unwilling to enter into an agreement on FRAND terms and conditions.

5.   Conclusions

| (21) | In the light of the commitments offered by Samsung, the Decision considers that there are no longer grounds for action and that, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the proceedings in this case should therefore be brought to an end. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

In the light of the commitments offered by Samsung, the Decision considers that there are no longer grounds for action and that, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the proceedings in this case should therefore be brought to an end.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS).

(3)  OJ C 302, 18.10.2013, p. 14.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/11

---

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Brazil and the People’s Republic of China

(2014/C 350/09)

Following the publication of a Notice of impending expiry (1) of the anti-dumping measures in force on the imports of certain aluminium foils originating in Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (‘the countries concerned’), the European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’).

1.   Request for review

The request was lodged on 30 June 2014 by AFM Aluminiumfolie Merseburg, Alcomet AD, Eurofoil Luxembourg S.A., Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH, Impold.o.o. and Symetal S.A. (‘the applicants’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of certain aluminium foils.

2.   Product under review

The product subject to this review is aluminium foil of a thickness of not less than 0,008 mm and not more than 0,018 mm, not backed, not further worked than rolled, in rolls of a width not exceeding 650 mm and of a weight exceeding 10 kg (‘the product under review’), originating in Brazil and in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling within CN code ex 7607 11 19.

3.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 (3).

4.   Grounds for the review

The request is based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

4.1.   
  Allegation of likelihood of a continuation/recurrence of dumping

Brazil

Since the applicants were unable to obtain evidence on domestic prices for Brazil, the normal value is constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs, selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and profit in Brazil. In view of the current virtual absence of imports volumes from Brazil to the Union the export price is established on the basis of the price of the product under review when sold for export to the United States of America at ex-works level. The comparison of the constructed normal value with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product under review showed dumping.

On the basis of the above comparison, the applicants allege that there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping from Brazil.

The People’s Republic of China

Since, in view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the People’s Republic of China is considered to be a non-market economy country, the applicants established normal value for the imports from the People’s Republic of China on the basis of a constructed normal value (manufacturing costs, selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A) and profit) in a market economy third country, in this case Turkey. The allegation of likelihood of a continuation of dumping is based on a comparison of the normal value thus established with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product under review when sold for export to the Union.

On the basis of the above comparison, which shows dumping, the applicants allege that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping from the People’s Republic of China.

4.2.   
  Allegation of likelihood of continuation/recurrence of injury

The applicants provided prima facie evidence for likelihood of recurrence of injury with respect of imports from Brazil and in the same time likelihood of a continuation of injury with respect of imports from the People’s Republic of China.

Brazil

The applicants allege that the injury has been removed and this is mainly due to the existence of measures. They alleged that any recurrence of substantial imports at dumped prices from Brazil would likely lead to a recurrence of injury to the Union industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

The applicants provided prima facie evidence that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the current import level of the product under review from Brazil to the Union is likely to increase due to the potential of the manufacturing facilities of the exporting producers in Brazil and the attractiveness of the Union market in terms of the price level. That would lead to a recurrence of injury.

The People’s Republic of China

The applicants allege that the injury to the Union industry still exists. They provided prima facie evidence that imports of the product under review from the People’s Republic of China to the Union remained significant in absolute terms.

The prima facie evidence also shows that the volume and the prices of the product under review had, among other consequences, a negative impact on the quantities sold and the level of prices charged by the Union industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance, the financial situation and the employment situation of the Union industry.

The applicants allege the likelihood of a continuation of injury. In this respect the applicants provided evidence that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the current import level of the product under review from the People’s Republic of China to the Union is likely to increase due to the potential of the manufacturing facilities of the exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China and the attractiveness of the Union market in terms of the price level.

In addition, the applicants allege that any further substantial increase of imports at dumped prices from the People’s Republic of China would be likely to cause further injury to the Union industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission hereby initiates a review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

The expiry review will determine whether the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping of the product under review originating in Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (‘the countries concerned’) and a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

5.1.   
  Procedure for the determination of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping

5.1.1.   Investigating exporting producers

Exporting producers (4) of the product under review from the countries concerned, including those that did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures in force, are invited to participate in the Commission investigation.

5.1.1.1.   Procedure for selecting exporting producers to be investigated in the People’s Republic of China

Sampling

In view of the potentially large number of exporting producers in the People’s Republic of China involved in this expiry review and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission may limit the exporting producers to be investigated to a reasonable number by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling will be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary, and if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, including the ones who did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission. These parties have to do so within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified, by providing the Commission with the information on their company(ies) requested in Annex I to this Notice.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of exporting producers, the Commission will also contact the authorities of the People’s Republic of China and may contact any known associations of exporting producers.

All interested parties wishing to submit any other relevant information regarding the selection of the sample, excluding the information requested above, must do so within 21 days of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

If a sample is necessary, the exporting producers may be selected based on the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. All known exporting producers, the authorities of the People’s Republic of China and associations of exporting producers will be notified by the Commission, via the authorities of the People’s Republic of China if appropriate, of the companies selected to be in the sample.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation with regard to exporting producers, the Commission will send questionnaires to the exporting producers selected to be in the sample, to any known association of exporting producers and to the authorities of the People’s Republic of China.

All exporting producers selected to be in the sample, any known association of exporting producers and the authorities of the People’s Republic of China will have to submit a completed questionnaire within 37 days from the date of notification of the sample selection, unless otherwise specified.

Without prejudice to the possible application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, companies that have agreed to their possible inclusion in the sample but are not selected to be in the sample will be considered to be cooperating (‘non-sampled cooperating exporting producers’).

5.1.1.2.   Procedure for selecting exporting producers to be investigated in Brazil

All exporting producers and associations of exporting producers in Brazil are invited to contact the Commission, preferably by e-mail, immediately but no later than 15 days after the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified, in order to make themselves known and request a questionnaire.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation with regard to exporting producers, the Commission will send questionnaires to the known exporting producers in Brazil, to any known association of exporting producers, and to the authorities of Brazil.

The exporting producers, where applicable, the associations of exporting producers and the authorities of Brazil must submit the completed questionnaire within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

5.1.2.   Additional procedure with regard to exporting producers in the non-market economy country concerned

Selection of a market economy third country

In accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in the case of imports from the People’s Republic of China normal value will be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country.

In the previous investigation, Turkey was used as a market economy third country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People’s Republic of China. For the purpose of the current investigation, the Commission envisages using again Turkey. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within 10 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. According to the information available to the Commission, other market economy suppliers of the Union may be located, inter alia, in Russia. The Commission will examine whether there is production and sales of the product under review in those market economy third countries for which there are indications that production of the product under review is taking place.

5.1.3.   Investigating unrelated importers
   (5)
   (6)

Unrelated importers of the product under review from the countries concerned to the Union are invited to participate in this investigation.

In view of the potentially large number of unrelated importers involved in this expiry review and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission may limit to a reasonable number the unrelated importers that will be investigated by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling will be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all unrelated importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, including the ones who did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission. These parties must do so within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified, by providing the Commission with the information on their company(ies) requested in Annex II to this Notice.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of unrelated importers, the Commission may also contact any known associations of importers.

All interested parties wishing to submit any other relevant information regarding the selection of the sample, excluding the information requested above, must do so within 21 days of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

If a sample is necessary, the importers may be selected based on the largest representative volume of sales of the product under review in the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. All known unrelated importers and associations of importers will be notified by the Commission of the companies selected to be in the sample.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the sampled unrelated importers and to any known association of importers. These parties must submit a completed questionnaire within 37 days from the date of the notification of the sample selection, unless otherwise specified.

5.2.   
  Procedure for the determination of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury – Investigating Union producers

In order to establish whether there is a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry, Union producers of the product under review are invited to participate in the Commission investigation.

In view of the large number of Union producers involved in this expiry review and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission has decided to limit to a reasonable number the Union producers that will be investigated by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling is carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

The Commission has provisionally selected a sample of Union producers. Details can be found in the file for inspection by interested parties. Interested parties are hereby invited to consult the file (for this they should contact the Commission using the contact details provided in section 5.6 below). Other Union producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, including Union producers who did not cooperate in the investigation(s) leading to the measures in force, that consider that there are reasons why they should be included in the sample must contact the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

All interested parties wishing to submit any other relevant information regarding the selection of the sample must do so within 21 days of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

All known Union producers and/or associations of Union producers will be notified by the Commission of the companies finally selected to be in the sample.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the sampled Union producers and to any known associations of Union producers. These parties must submit a completed questionnaire within 37 days from the date of the notification of the sample selection, unless otherwise specified.

5.3.   
  Procedure for the assessment of Union interest

Should the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury be confirmed, a decision will be reached, pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, as to whether maintaining the anti-dumping measures would not be against the Union interest. Union producers, importers and their representative associations, users and their representative associations, and representative consumer organisations are invited to make themselves known within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. In order to participate in the investigation, the representative consumer organisations have to demonstrate, within the same deadline, that there is an objective link between their activities and the product under review.

Parties that make themselves known within the above deadline may provide the Commission with information on the Union interest within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. This information may be provided either in a free format or by completing a questionnaire prepared by the Commission. In any case, information submitted pursuant to Article 21 will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

5.4.   
  Other written submissions

Subject to the provisions of this Notice, all interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence. Unless otherwise specified, this information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

5.5.   
  Possibility to be heard by the Commission investigation services

All interested parties may request to be heard by the Commission investigation services. Any request to be heard must be made in writing and must specify the reasons for the request. For hearings on issues pertaining to the initial stage of the investigation the request must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, a request to be heard must be submitted within the specific deadlines set by the Commission in its communication with the parties.

5.6.   
  Instructions for making written submissions and sending completed questionnaires and correspondence

All written submissions, including the information requested in this Notice, completed questionnaires and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled ‘Limited’ (7).

Interested parties providing ‘Limited’ information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’. These summaries must be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such information may be disregarded.

Interested parties are invited to make all submissions and requests by e-mail including scanned powers of attorney and certification sheets, with the exception of voluminous replies which shall be submitted on a CD-ROM or DVD by hand or by registered mail. By using e-mail, interested parties express their agreement with the rules applicable to electronic submissions contained in the document ‘CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN TRADE DEFENCE CASES’ published on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_148003.pdf The interested parties must indicate their name, address, telephone and a valid e-mail address and they should ensure that the provided e-mail address is a functioning official business e-mail which is checked on a daily basis. Once contact details are provided, the Commission will communicate with interested parties by e-mail only, unless they explicitly request to receive all documents from the Commission by another means of communication or unless the nature of the document to be sent requires the use of a registered mail. For further rules and information concerning correspondence with the Commission including principles that apply to submissions by e-mail, interested parties should consult the communication instructions with interested parties referred to above.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Trade |
| Directorate H |
| Office: CHAR 04/039 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: |
| TRADE-ALUFOIL-R607-DUMPING@ec.europa.eu |
| TRADE-ALUFOIL-R607-INJURY@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: CHAR 04/039

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail:

TRADE-ALUFOIL-R607-DUMPING@ec.europa.eu

TRADE-ALUFOIL-R607-INJURY@ec.europa.eu

6.   Non-cooperation

In cases where any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information may be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

Failure to give a computerised response shall not be deemed to constitute non-cooperation, provided that the interested party shows that presenting the response as requested would result in an unreasonable extra burden or unreasonable additional cost. The interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

7.   Hearing Officer

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer for the Directorate-General for Trade. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties’ rights of defence are being fully exercised.

A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. For hearings on issues pertaining to the initial stage of the investigation the request must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, a request to be heard must be submitted within specific deadlines set by the Commission in its communication with the parties.

The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered on issues pertaining, among other things, to the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and Union interest.

For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer’s web pages on DG Trade’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/hearing-officer/

8.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

9.   Possibility to request a review under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation

As this expiry review is initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the findings thereof will not lead to the existing measures being amended but will lead to those measures being repealed or maintained in accordance with Article 11(6) of the basic Regulation.

If any interested party considers that a review of the measures is warranted so as to allow for the possibility to amend the measures, that party may request a review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

Parties wishing to request such a review, which would be carried out independently of the expiry review mentioned in this Notice, may contact the Commission at the address given above.

10.   Processing of personal data

Any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of 18 December 2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (8).

---

(1)  Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (2014/C 49/07) (OJ C 49, 21.2.2014, p. 7).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version) (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p. 1).

(4)  An exporting producer is any company in the countries concerned which produces and exports the product under review to the Union market, either directly or via third party, including any of its related companies involved in the production, domestic sales or exports of the product under review.

(5)  Only importers not related to exporting producers can be sampled. Importers that are related to exporting producers have to fill in Annex I to the questionnaire for these exporting producers. For the definition of a related party see footnote 5 in Annex I or footnote 8 in Annex II.

(6)  The data provided by unrelated importers may also be used in relation to aspects of this investigation other than the determination of dumping.

(7)  A ‘Limited’ document is a document which is considered confidential pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 343 22.12.2009 p. 51) and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement). It is also a document protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

(8)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

---

ANNEX I

---

ANNEX II

---

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/22

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2014/C 350/10)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain aluminium foil | Armenia | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 (OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p. 1) | 7.10.2014 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Certain aluminium foil

Armenia

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 925/2009 (OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p. 1)

7.10.2014

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 21.2.2014, p. 7.

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/23

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.7307 — Electricity Supply Board/Vodafone Ireland/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 350/11)

| 1. | On 26 September 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings the Electricity Supply Board (‘ESB’, Ireland), a majority State-owned company, and Vodafone Ireland Limited (‘Vodafone Ireland’, Ireland), a wholly-owned subsidiary belonging to Vodafone Group Plc, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture company (‘JVCo’, Ireland) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 26 September 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings the Electricity Supply Board (‘ESB’, Ireland), a majority State-owned company, and Vodafone Ireland Limited (‘Vodafone Ireland’, Ireland), a wholly-owned subsidiary belonging to Vodafone Group Plc, acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture company (‘JVCo’, Ireland) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   for ESB: an electricity utility, principally active in the transmission, distribution, generation and supply of electricity,
  —   for Vodafone Ireland: a company primarily involved in the provision of mobile and non-mobile communications services,
  —   for JVCo: a jointly controlled company to build, deliver and operate a high capacity fibre-to-the-building (‘FTTB’) network in Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for ESB: an electricity utility, principally active in the transmission, distribution, generation and supply of electricity,

—   for Vodafone Ireland: a company primarily involved in the provision of mobile and non-mobile communications services,

—   for JVCo: a jointly controlled company to build, deliver and operate a high capacity fibre-to-the-building (‘FTTB’) network in Ireland.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7307 — Electricity Supply Board/Vodafone Ireland/JV, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7307 — Electricity Supply Board/Vodafone Ireland/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 4.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/24

---

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 350/12)

This publication confers the right to oppose 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)

‘MELOA DE SANTA MARIA — AÇORES’

EC No: PT-PGI-0005-01124 — 1.7.2013

PGI ( X ) PDO ( )

1.   Name

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Member State or Third Country

Portugal

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Type of product

Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

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

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

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ is a reticulated cantaloupe melon of the species Cucumis melo L.

Cucumis melo

The fruit is round to oval in shape, has a markedly reticulated rind that is greenish when unripe and turns greenish yellow as it ripens and soft, aromatic orange-coloured flesh that tastes sweet and juicy when ripe.

The physical, chemical and nutritional characteristics of the product are set out in the tables below.

| Parameter | Average value | Minimum value | Maximum value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Water content (g/%) | 88,11-89,03 | 86,63 | 91,10 |
| pH | 6,26-6,37 | 5,37 | 6,66 |
| Crude protein (g/%) | 0,67-0,83 | 0,5 | 1,1 |
| Reducing sugars (g/%) | 3,67-3,78 | 3 | 6 |
| Total sugars (g/%) | 8,33-9,56 | 6 | 11 |
| Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) | 0,17-0,23 | 0,1 | 0,4 |

Parameter

Average value

Minimum value

Maximum value

Water content (g/%)

88,11-89,03

86,63

91,10

pH

6,26-6,37

5,37

6,66

Crude protein (g/%)

0,67-0,83

0,5

1,1

Reducing sugars (g/%)

3,67-3,78

3

6

Total sugars (g/%)

8,33-9,56

6

11

Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)

0,17-0,23

0,1

0,4

| Parameter | Average value | Unit | Minimum value | Maximum value |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sodium | 41 | mg Na/% | 25,9 | 57,1 |
| Potassium | 426,5 | mg K/% | 323,6 | 516,6 |
| Calcium | 67,3 | mg Ca/% | 46,0 | 109,2 |
| Magnesium | 90,6 | mg Mg/% | 71,9 | 123,3 |
| Soluble iron | < 0,1 | mg Fe/% | — | < 0,1 |
| Total iron | < 0,1 | mg Fe/% | — | < 0,1 |
| Vitamin C | 104,8 | mg vit. C/% | 64,21 | 165,8 |

Parameter

Average value

Unit

Minimum value

Maximum value

Sodium

41

mg Na/%

25,9

57,1

Potassium

426,5

mg K/%

323,6

516,6

Calcium

67,3

mg Ca/%

46,0

109,2

Magnesium

90,6

mg Mg/%

71,9

123,3

Soluble iron

< 0,1

mg Fe/%

—

< 0,1

Total iron

< 0,1

mg Fe/%

—

< 0,1

Vitamin C

104,8

mg vit. C/%

64,21

165,8

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ is intended for consumption fresh and is sold whole. The fruit are sorted by diameter and weight, and only fruit with a diameter of over 10 cm and weighing between 600 and 1 400 g are accepted (weight between 600 and 799 g, size II; weight between 800 and 1 400 g, size I).

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

Raw materials (for processed products only)

—

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

Feed (for products of animal origin only)

—

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

Specific steps in production that must take place in the defined geographical area

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ must be grown, harvested and selected in the defined geographical area.

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

Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ is packaged individually or together, arranged in a single layer. The contents of each package must be homogeneous, and consist only of fruit of the same provenance (farm), variety, size and degree of ripeness. The fruit that can be seen must be representative of all the fruit in the package.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

Specific rules concerning labelling

In addition to the statutory information, the following must appear on all packaging:

The words ‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores Indicação Geográfica Protegida (IGP)’.

Product logo.

Community logo.

Certification mark (this allows the inspection body to be identified and the product traced via the compulsory numbering system).

All the fruit, regardless of how it is presented for sale, must be individually identified with the product logo and the certification mark.

Product logo:

The product logo, in addition to the standard version shown above, in colour on a white background, may be reproduced in the following variations: in colour on a black background, in shades of grey on a white background and in black and white, positive or negative.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Concise definition of the geographical area

The defined geographical area comprises all the parishes on the island of Santa Maria in the Archipelago of the Azores.

5.   Link with the geographical area

Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

Specificity of the geographical area

The island of Santa Maria is the only island in the Archipelago of the Azores that has areas of sedimentary origin (limestone) in addition to the volcanic formations found on the other islands. The specificity of this island is therefore entirely derived from the type of soil: clay loam, very rich in potassium, calcium and magnesium and in all the other micronutrients; the organic matter content is high and the pH is neutral.

Due to its position in the south-east of the archipelago and its low altitude, the island of Santa Maria has lower humidity levels than the other islands. The climate is considered dry and temperate, with little fluctuation between the average winter temperature (14 °C) and the average summer temperature (22 °C) and an annual average temperature that varies between 10° and 20 °C. In terms of the relative humidity of the air, the climate is considered humid (annual average relative humidity at 09.00 between 75 % and 90 %). As regards precipitation, it is classified as moderately rainy to rainy (average annual precipitation between 500 and 2 000 mm), depending on the area. In short, the island of Santa Maria has its own very specific climatic conditions, explained by its location, size, morphology and orography, which distinguish it from the other islands of the Archipelago of the Azores.

The combination of climate and the diverse types of soil and relief gives the island's agricultural produce very specific characteristics, and it precisely this that makes ‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ stand out from other melons. Another important factor is the producers' expertise in growing the crop and the techniques they use — such as incorporating forage legume residue into the soil, shape pruning, knowing how to tell when the fruit is perfectly ripe, good irrigation and rigorous selection of the fruit. The result is a product which, by its flavour, texture and aroma, can be distinguished from other melons, and is widely recognised by consumers elsewhere in the Azores and in mainland Portugal.

The melons have been known for their flavour of the local melons has been acknowledged since they were first introduced on the island, as stated by Gaspar Frutuoso in 1570: ‘(...) melons are also plentiful, the best on these islands, and there is not a single one, even the least good, that does not taste delicious (...)’. In modern times, the island continues to be known for fruit production and is ‘famous for its melons’ (Guido de Monterey, 1981, p. 47).

5.2.   Specificity of the product

Specificity of the product

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ can be distinguished from fruit of the same category produced elsewhere by its physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics. Organoleptically, it is distinguished by its soft, orange-coloured flesh, and sweet, juicy taste when ripe, which is very specific to the varieties grown on the island of Santa Maria. It can be detected immediately by its aroma, created by the release of volatile acids.

Of the nutritional properties listed in point 3.2 an important one is the high vitamin C content, compared to the average value for common melons, and the fact that it is rich in minerals, including potassium, magnesium and calcium. Regarding energy values, ‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ has higher average values than the common melon. It also contains more protein, fat and carbohydrate. Regarding fibre, it has lower values than the common melon.

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)

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)

As a crop melons were introduced by colonists on the island of Santa Maria around the 16th century and then continued to be grown as a garden crop. Writing about regional production at that time, when the island's main agricultural products were wine and sweet potatoes, Adriano Ferreira (1996, p. 88) provides a historical record of the lands and its people, stating that ‘Santa Maria was known for its excellent melons, which were exported to other islands. And let it be said, while we are about it, that our fruit was always good, although we never produced large quantities of it’.

More recently, in the seventies, emigrants from America began to introduce hybrid melon varieties. Local growers soon realised that these new varieties grew very well and produced high quality fruit, in addition to having excellent commercial potential, and gradually increased their production area. For almost 20 years efforts focused on finding the melon variety that best adapted to Santa Maria's soil and climatic conditions and met the islanders' demands. Reticulated cantaloupe varieties were the ones selected.

The specific characteristics of ‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ — rough rind, juicy, orange-coloured flesh, sweet taste and aroma — derive from the soil and climatic conditions of the island and the local production methods. The development of volatile acids, which occurs when the fruit ripens and gives it its aroma, and the specific characteristics of the local soil, rich in potassium, magnesium, calcium and other micronutrients, give the fruit the physical, chemical and nutritional characteristics described in points 3.2 and 5.2.

Also important is the producers' knowledge of the fruit and method of production, including the fact that on Santa Maria forage legume residue — Outonos (field beans/yellow lupin) — is incorporated into the soil, which improves its fertility in a natural and very specific way. For better plant development it is important to carry out shape pruning on ‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’; this is not traditionally done on common melons. ‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’ is very susceptible to root rot, so reducing the amount of water given at harvesting time is beneficial for the quality of the fruit. The production techniques, degree of ripeness, sorting by size and manual selection of the fruit when harvested all result in a melon with specific physical and chemical characteristics that distinguish it from similar melons grown elsewhere in Europe.

Outonos

‘Meloa de Santa Maria — Açores’, established by tradition, is very popular and is preferred by consumers who can tell it apart from melons grown elsewhere by its appearance and flavour. Originally, it was sold only on the local market. However, the product's reputation for excellent quality led to an increase in demand from major commercial operators on the neighbouring island, São Miguel, which was an incentive to increase both the quantity and quality of the fruit produced. Today it is a distinct product with specific characteristics that are closely linked to the geographical production area, the island of Santa Maria in the Archipelago of the Azores.

Publication reference of the specification

Publication reference of the specification

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

3

http://www.dgadr.mamaot.pt/images/docs/val/dop_igp_etg/Valor/doc/CE_MeloaStaMaria.pdf

---

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

1

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

2

(3)  See footnote 2.

3

---