# Official Journal C 251/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.251.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 251 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5427 August 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.251.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 251

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5427 August 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 251/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2011/C 251/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 2 May 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal — Rapporteur: Czech Republic | 2 |
| 2011/C 251/03 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal | 3 |
| 2011/C 251/04 | Summary of the Commission Decision of 24 May 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal) (notified under document C(2011) 3640 final) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 251/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2011/C 251/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 2 May 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal — Rapporteur: Czech Republic

2

2011/C 251/03

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal

3

2011/C 251/04

Summary of the Commission Decision of 24 May 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal) (notified under document C(2011) 3640 final)

(notified under document C(2011) 3640 final)

4

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 251/05 | Publication of an amendment application in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed | 6 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2011/C 251/05

Publication of an amendment application in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed

6

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 August 2011

2011/C 251/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4402 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 110,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4509 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88565 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1082 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1458 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7735 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,166 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,66 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7096 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1751 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2445 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5275 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3727 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4241 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2298 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7262 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7379 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 557,78 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,3676 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1988 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4833 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 339,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3040 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,045 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,6500 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,177 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3185 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0543 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,4720 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4402

JPY

Japanese yen

110,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4509

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88565

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1082

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1458

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7735

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,166

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,66

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7096

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1751

RON

Romanian leu

4,2445

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5275

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3727

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4241

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2298

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7262

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7379

KRW

South Korean won

1 557,78

ZAR

South African rand

10,3676

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1988

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4833

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 339,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3040

PHP

Philippine peso

61,045

RUB

Russian rouble

41,6500

THB

Thai baht

43,177

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3185

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0543

INR

Indian rupee

66,4720

---

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

---

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 2 May 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal

Rapporteur: Czech Republic

2011/C 251/02

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA and Suez Environnement Company SA, at least by negligence, infringed Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA and Suez Environnement Company SA, at least by negligence, infringed Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors taken into account by the Commission when calculating the level of the fine for Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA and Suez Environnement Company SA pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors taken into account by the Commission when calculating the level of the fine for Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA and Suez Environnement Company SA pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the actual level of the fine proposed by the Commission.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/3

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal

2011/C 251/03

This case concerns an infringement of procedural competition rules by the French group Suez Environnement Company SA (‘Suez Environnement’) and its subsidiary Lyonnaise des eaux France SA (‘LDE’) as a result of a breach of a seal affixed during an inspection by the Commission of LDE's headquarters in April 2010.

On 19 October 2010, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections, which was notified to Suez Environnement and LDE on 21 October 2010. The Statement of Objections came to the preliminary conclusion that a seal affixed at LDE's headquarters during the inspection conducted by the Commission in April 2010 had been broken within the meaning of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that the Commission intended to impose a fine on LDE and Suez Environnement under that Article. The Statement of Objections also indicated that the Commission intended to hold Suez Environnement liable for the infringement committed by LDE.

On 8 December 2010, the parties, having been granted access to the Commission's case file, submitted their comments in reply to the Statement of Objections. I have not been informed of any incident relating to access to the file.

In their written comments, the parties did not contest that an infringement had taken place, but stated that the infringement had been committed as a result of negligence. They also argued, as a mitigating factor, that they had actively cooperated with the Commission once the breach of seal was discovered. The parties did not contest that liability for the infringement could be attributed to Suez Environnement.

In their written comments, the parties also indicated that they did not wish to exercise their right to a formal oral hearing.

After having examined the Commission's draft decision, I hereby confirm that the parties have been heard on all objections contained therein.

In conclusion, I consider that the right to be heard has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 3 May 2011.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Article 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).

1

---

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/4

---

Summary of the Commission Decision

of 24 May 2011

relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

(Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal)

(notified under document C(2011) 3640 final)

(Only the French text is authentic)

2011/C 251/04

On 24 May 2011, the Commission adopted a Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1)
  on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
   (2). In accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission publishes herewith the names of the parties and the main content of the Decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the Decision is available on the Competition Directorate-General’s website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39796

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The Decision is addressed to Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA (‘LDE’, France) and Suez Environnement Company SA (‘Suez Environnement’, France). It imposes a fine on them for the breach of a seal affixed by Commission officials during an inspection of LDE's headquarters, an infringement referred to in Article 23(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision is addressed to Lyonnaise des Eaux France SA (‘LDE’, France) and Suez Environnement Company SA (‘Suez Environnement’, France). It imposes a fine on them for the breach of a seal affixed by Commission officials during an inspection of LDE's headquarters, an infringement referred to in Article 23(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

2.   PROCEDURE

| (2) | On 21 May 2010 proceedings were initiated against Suez Environnement with a view to adopting a decision sanctioning the breaking of a seal at the headquarters of LDE, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Suez Environnement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 21 May 2010 proceedings were initiated against Suez Environnement with a view to adopting a decision sanctioning the breaking of a seal at the headquarters of LDE, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Suez Environnement.

| (3) | On 21 October 2010 a statement of objections was sent to Suez Environnement and LDE. Based on the facts available, the statement of objections concludes that the seal affixed at LDE's headquarters was broken within the meaning of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that LDE and Suez Environnement bore responsibility for that infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 21 October 2010 a statement of objections was sent to Suez Environnement and LDE. Based on the facts available, the statement of objections concludes that the seal affixed at LDE's headquarters was broken within the meaning of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that LDE and Suez Environnement bore responsibility for that infringement.

| (4) | On 8 December 2010 Suez Environnement and LDE submitted their comments in reply to the statement of objections. In their reply they contested neither the materiality nor the legal interpretation of the facts. They also did not contest the attribution of liability for the infringement to Suez Environnement. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 8 December 2010 Suez Environnement and LDE submitted their comments in reply to the statement of objections. In their reply they contested neither the materiality nor the legal interpretation of the facts. They also did not contest the attribution of liability for the infringement to Suez Environnement.

| (5) | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted on whether an infringement had been committed and the amount of the proposed fine on 2 May 2011. The Advisory Committee unanimously issued a positive opinion on the Commission’s draft Decision, including the amount of the proposed fine. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted on whether an infringement had been committed and the amount of the proposed fine on 2 May 2011. The Advisory Committee unanimously issued a positive opinion on the Commission’s draft Decision, including the amount of the proposed fine.

| (6) | The Hearing Officer submitted his final report on 3 May 2011. The report finds that the rights of the parties to be heard have been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Hearing Officer submitted his final report on 3 May 2011. The report finds that the rights of the parties to be heard have been respected.

3.   FACTS

| (7) | On 14 April 2010, during an inspection at the headquarters of LDE conducted under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in the context of Case COMP/39.756 (Water and waste water purification markets), a seal affixed by Commission officials was broken. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 14 April 2010, during an inspection at the headquarters of LDE conducted under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in the context of Case COMP/39.756 (Water and waste water purification markets), a seal affixed by Commission officials was broken.

4.   ANALYSIS

| (8) | First, the Decision determines that the seal in question was affixed in line with the provisions of Article 20(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that it was intact when affixed. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

First, the Decision determines that the seal in question was affixed in line with the provisions of Article 20(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that it was intact when affixed.

| (9) | Second, the Decision determines that the seal was broken within the meaning of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that the breach was due at the very least to negligence. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Second, the Decision determines that the seal was broken within the meaning of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that the breach was due at the very least to negligence.

| (10) | Third, the Decision determines that LDE was liable for the infringement in that it was committed on LDE's premises. Furthermore, Suez Environnement also bears responsibility for the infringement, given the business, organisational and legal ties between LDE and Suez Environnement and the fact that the latter was closely involved in the inspection carried out at LDE. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Third, the Decision determines that LDE was liable for the infringement in that it was committed on LDE's premises. Furthermore, Suez Environnement also bears responsibility for the infringement, given the business, organisational and legal ties between LDE and Suez Environnement and the fact that the latter was closely involved in the inspection carried out at LDE.

5.   FINE

| (11) | Since the infringement referred to by Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 has been established, the Commission may impose on the undertakings fines not exceeding 1 % of their turnover. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Since the infringement referred to by Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 has been established, the Commission may impose on the undertakings fines not exceeding 1 % of their turnover.

| (12) | In the present instance, regarding the amount of the fine, the Decision takes both the serious nature of the infringement and the special circumstances of the case into account. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In the present instance, regarding the amount of the fine, the Decision takes both the serious nature of the infringement and the special circumstances of the case into account.

| (13) | Concerning the serious nature of the infringement, the Decision notes that the breaking of a seal represents a major violation of the Commission's investigative powers in the competition field. Moreover, the Decision underlines that LDE and Suez Environnement, large companies with expertise in competition law, were fully aware of the risk of sanctions being incurred for this kind of infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Concerning the serious nature of the infringement, the Decision notes that the breaking of a seal represents a major violation of the Commission's investigative powers in the competition field. Moreover, the Decision underlines that LDE and Suez Environnement, large companies with expertise in competition law, were fully aware of the risk of sanctions being incurred for this kind of infringement.

| (14) | As far as the special circumstances of the case are concerned, the Decision states that Suez Environnement and LDE, on discovering the breach of seal, voluntarily and without delay passed on to the Commission a great deal of information shedding light on the facts and facilitating the Commission's investigation. They also provided information on the basis of which they admit that an LDE employee broke the seal. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

As far as the special circumstances of the case are concerned, the Decision states that Suez Environnement and LDE, on discovering the breach of seal, voluntarily and without delay passed on to the Commission a great deal of information shedding light on the facts and facilitating the Commission's investigation. They also provided information on the basis of which they admit that an LDE employee broke the seal.

| (15) | In this connection the Decision emphasises that Suez Environnement and LDE provided information far beyond what the Commission could have insisted on under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In this connection the Decision emphasises that Suez Environnement and LDE provided information far beyond what the Commission could have insisted on under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| (16) | Furthermore, the Decision notes that Suez Environnement and LDE accepted the findings of the statement of objections as to the materiality and legal interpretation of the facts, as well as the fact that the infringement was attributable to them. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Furthermore, the Decision notes that Suez Environnement and LDE accepted the findings of the statement of objections as to the materiality and legal interpretation of the facts, as well as the fact that the infringement was attributable to them.

6.   CONCLUSION

| (17) | On the basis of all of the above, the Decision imposes a fine of EUR 8 000 000 jointly and severally on LDE and Suez Environnement. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

On the basis of all of the above, the Decision imposes a fine of EUR 8 000 000 jointly and severally on LDE and Suez Environnement.

---

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

(2)  With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 101 and 102 respectively of the TFEU. The provisions laid down in the respective articles are, in substance, identical in both cases. For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU should be understood as references to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty where appropriate.

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/6

---

Publication of an amendment application in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed

2011/C 251/05

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months of the date of this publication.

AMENDMENT APPLICATION

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 509/2006

AMENDMENT APPLICATION ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 11

‘FALUKORV’

EC No: SE-TSG-0107-0020-31.08.2007

1.   Applicant group:

| Name of the group: | Kött och Charkföretagen (Swedish Meat Industry Association) |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | Box 55680 |
| SE-102 15 Stockholm |
| SVERIGE |

Name of the group:

Kött och Charkföretagen (Swedish Meat Industry Association)

Address:

Box 55680

SE-102 15 Stockholm

SVERIGE

Tel.

+46 87626525

E-mail:

info@kcf.se

2.   Member State or third country:

Sweden

3.   Heading in the specification affected by the amendment:

| — |  | Name of product |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — |  | Reservation of the name (Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006) |
| — | | Description of product |
| — | | Method of production |
| — | | Other (specify): minimum requirements and procedures for checking the specific character |

—



Name of product

—



Reservation of the name (Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006)

—

Image

Description of product

—

Image

Method of production

—

Image

Other (specify): minimum requirements and procedures for checking the specific character

4.   Type of amendment(s):

| — | | Amendment to specification of registered TSG |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — |  | Temporary amendment to specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by public authorities (Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006) (provide evidence of these measures) |

—

Image

Amendment to specification of registered TSG

—



Temporary amendment to specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by public authorities (Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006) (provide evidence of these measures)

5.   Amendment(s):

Method of production

(a)   Raw materials

| (i) | Simplification and shortening of the part of the text on the meat and fat contained in the product. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Simplification and shortening of the part of the text on the meat and fat contained in the product.

| (ii) | Change from cooking salt to salt. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Change from cooking salt to salt.

| (iii) | Sugar, dextrose and onion added to permitted raw materials. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Sugar, dextrose and onion added to permitted raw materials.

The amendment constitutes clarification of the definition of meat. Changes are also proposed which are based on a development in the recipe, and also the use of different types of salt other than cooking salt. However, these changes do not affect the food’s specific character or fundamental properties. Obligatory raw materials should be specified in order to safeguard the specific character. The use of permitted raw materials does not significantly affect the food’s specific character.

(b)   Additives

| (i) | Preservative E 250 becomes an obligatory additive. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Preservative E 250 becomes an obligatory additive.

| (ii) | Ascorbic acid (E 300), sodium ascorbate (E 301) and E 450, E 451, E 452 (up to maximum-permitted-use level of 1,5 g/kg calculated as P2O5) become permitted additives. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Ascorbic acid (E 300), sodium ascorbate (E 301) and E 450, E 451, E 452 (up to maximum-permitted-use level of 1,5 g/kg calculated as P2O5) become permitted additives.

The amendment constitutes a modification of additive designations and constitutes clarification. It is a consequence of natural developments in production technology. Obligatory additives should be specified in order to safeguard the specific character. The use of permitted additives does not significantly affect the food’s specific character.

(c)   Preparation

The background to the amendment is a natural development in the technical equipment used in the meat products industry. A clarification has been introduced compared with the previous specification, namely that ‘smoke-permeable casings’ must be used. This clarification is important in ensuring that the traditional character of the food is maintained.

Description of the product

Simplification of the text in a way which does not affect the food’s specific character or properties. The microbiological properties are no longer relevant in view of the developments which hygiene legislation has gone through since the original specification was approved.

A more detailed description of the specific character of ‘Falukorv’ has been added.

Minimum requirements and procedures to check the ‘specific character’

| (a) | Adaptation to the new definition of meat (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC, Annex I). As the EU definition of meat has been amended since the previous specification was approved, the minimum permitted meat content had to be raised. There is no substantive change, merely an adaptation of the definition. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Adaptation to the new definition of meat (European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC, Annex I). As the EU definition of meat has been amended since the previous specification was approved, the minimum permitted meat content had to be raised. There is no substantive change, merely an adaptation of the definition.

| (b) | The amendment is a consequence of the removal of microbiological properties. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The amendment is a consequence of the removal of microbiological properties.

| (c) | Clarification has been introduced in terms of the frequency of checks and how they are to be carried out. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Clarification has been introduced in terms of the frequency of checks and how they are to be carried out.

6.   Updated product specification:

PRODUCT SPECIFICATION

6.1.   Name(s) to be registered (Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007):

‘Falukorv’

‘according to Swedish tradition’

6.2.   Whether the name:

| | is specific in itself |
| --- | --- |
|  | expresses the specific character of the agricultural product or foodstuff |

Image

is specific in itself



expresses the specific character of the agricultural product or foodstuff

‘Falukorv’ is an established name for the type of product covered by the specification. The name is used solely for this type of sausage and the use has a long history. The name of the sausage originates from the city of Falun, but the geographical link ceased to exist a long time ago and today ‘Falukorv’ is produced by meat product companies throughout Sweden.

6.3.   Whether reservation of the name is sought under Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006:

| | Registration with reservation of the name |
| --- | --- |
|  | Registration without reservation of the name |

Image

Registration with reservation of the name



Registration without reservation of the name

6.4.   Type of product:

| Class 1.2. | Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.) |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.2.

Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

6.5.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff to which the name under point 3.1 applies (Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007):

Organoleptic characteristics

The colour of the slices ranges from a faint to marked brownish-pink.

The consistency is firm.

‘Falukorv’ has a delicate to pronounced taste of smoke, seasoning and salt.

Physical and chemical characteristics

‘Falukorv’ may contain a maximum of 65 g water per 100 g finished product.

The fat content may be a maximum of 23 g per 100 g finished product, calculated on the basis of the maximum authorised water content.

6.6.   Description of the production method of the agricultural product or foodstuff to which the name under point 3.1 applies (Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007):

Obligatory raw materials

| — | raw or salted beef, horsemeat or pigmeat with rind removed (meat as defined in Annex I to European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC), |
| --- | --- |

—

raw or salted beef, horsemeat or pigmeat with rind removed (meat as defined in Annex I to European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC),

| — | raw or salted pig fat with rind removed, |
| --- | --- |

—

raw or salted pig fat with rind removed,

| — | potato flour, |
| --- | --- |

—

potato flour,

| — | water, |
| --- | --- |

—

water,

| — | salt, |
| --- | --- |

—

salt,

| — | seasoning. |
| --- | --- |

—

seasoning.

Raw materials permitted

| — | sugar, |
| --- | --- |

—

sugar,

| — | dextrose, |
| --- | --- |

—

dextrose,

| — | onion. |
| --- | --- |

—

onion.

Obligatory additives

| — | preservative E 250. |
| --- | --- |

—

preservative E 250.

Additives permitted

| — | anti-oxidants E 300, E 301, |
| --- | --- |

—

anti-oxidants E 300, E 301,

| — | stabilisers E 450, E 451, E 452 (maximum 1,5 g/kg calculated as P2O5). |
| --- | --- |

—

stabilisers E 450, E 451, E 452 (maximum 1,5 g/kg calculated as P2O5).

Preparation

The raw materials and additives are mixed and emulsified in an emulsifying machine or chopper.

The sausage mix is packed into smoke-permeable casings of at least 45 mm in diameter.

The sausages are smoked and heat-treated to a core temperature of not less than + 72 °C.

They are chilled to below + 8 °C.

6.7.   Specific character of the agricultural product or foodstuff (Article 3(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007):

The colour of the slices ranges from a faint to marked brownish-pink.

The consistency is firm.

‘Falukorv’ has a delicate to pronounced taste of smoke, seasoning and salt.

‘Falukorv’ may contain a maximum of 65 g water per 100 g finished product.

The fat content may be a maximum of 23 g per 100 g finished product, calculated on the basis of the maximum authorised water content.

‘Falukorv’ is a coarse sausage (diameter > 45 mm), which is sliced into centimetre-thick slices and fried for lunch or dinner. In some parts of Sweden sliced ‘Falukorv’ is also used as a sandwich filling.

6.8.   Traditional character of the agricultural product or foodstuff (Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007):

‘Falukorv’ goes back to 17th century Sweden. National rules on its production date from 1973. Most Swedes regard ‘Falukorv’ as a national dish.

According to the Dalarna Museum, ‘Falukorv’ dates back to the 17th century, when ox hides were used to produce cords for extracting ore from the Falu Koppargruva copper mine. In winter it was possible to store surplus meat, but in summer it was made into sausage so that it would keep longer. This sausage went by the name ‘Falukorv’.

The Stora Kopparbergs Län local newspaper of 14 December 1834 contained the following reference: ‘Every year large quantities of smoked sausage produced in Schedwi parish are sent to the capital. In Stockholm this goes by the name of Fahlu Korf (old Swedish spelling, now “Falukorv”) and has been a bestseller for many years.’

According to a survey of eating habits — ‘Mat och måltider bland arbetare och tjänstemän i Jonsered under 1900-talet’ (‘Food and meals of blue-collar and white-collar workers in Jonsered in the 20th century’) (third semester (C1) essay in ethnology, Göteborg University, spring semester 1976, Birgitta Frykman), ‘Falukorv’ is a common foodstuff in both white-collar and blue-collar households.

Traditionally, ‘Falukorv’ has always been produced from raw meat products, using potato flour as the sole binding agent.

The ‘Receptbok för charkuterister’ (‘Recipe book for meat product makers’), compiled by Henning Fasth in 1936, contains two recipes for ‘Falukorv’. The recipes use either beef or fatty pork or, in the second recipe, slightly fattier beef, but with potato flour as the sole binding agent.

Page 69 of ‘Charkuterikursen — del 2’ (‘Course for meat product manufacturers — part 2’) published by Brevskolan och LTK in 1955 contains a recipe for ‘Falukorv’. ‘Beef cat. III’ contains around 20 % fat and ‘pork III’ around 50 % (page 92). The sole binding agent is potato flour.

When the national standard was introduced in 1973, it laid down minimum requirements for meat quantities according to the traditional method of producing ‘Falukorv’ in the 1900s.

6.9.   Minimum requirements and procedures to check the specific character (Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2007):

There must be at least 45 g meat per 100 g finished product.

Potato flour may be added to a maximum 4 g dry matter per 100 g finished product. The dry matter is calculated on the basis of the maximum authorised water content.

Minimum and maximum content checks and chemical checks must be carried out annually at manufacturing establishments by the competent monitoring authority. Chemical values for fat and water must be measured by sampling following homogenisation of 500 g of ‘Falukorv’.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---