# Official Journal C 186/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 186 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 623 June 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 186

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 623 June 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 186/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2019/C 186/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2019/C 186/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2019/C 186/04 | Commission Implementing Decision of 22 May 2019 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the name Cidre de Normandie/Cidre normand (PGI) | 4 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2019/C 186/05 | Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor regarding the participation in the negotiations in view of a Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Cybercrime Convention | 14 |
| 2019/C 186/06 | Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the negotiating mandate of an EU-US agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence | 17 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 186/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2019/C 186/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2019/C 186/03

Euro exchange rates

3

2019/C 186/04

Commission Implementing Decision of 22 May 2019 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the name Cidre de Normandie/Cidre normand (PGI)

Official Journal of the European Union

4

European Data Protection Supervisor

2019/C 186/05

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor regarding the participation in the negotiations in view of a Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Cybercrime Convention

14

2019/C 186/06

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the negotiating mandate of an EU-US agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence

17

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 186/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9353 — Advent International Corporation/Evonik Methacrylates Business Division) (
  1
  ) | 20 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 186/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9353 — Advent International Corporation/Evonik Methacrylates Business Division) (
  1
  )

1

20

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 May 2019

(2019/C 186/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1156 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,91 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4687 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88225 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7063 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1217 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7730 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,861 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 326,47 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2998 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7604 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,7140 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6116 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5065 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7570 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7106 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5413 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 333,30 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,5276 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7081 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4245 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 083,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6788 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,380 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,8036 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,521 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4942 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,4504 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,8925 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1156

JPY

Japanese yen

121,91

DKK

Danish krone

7,4687

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88225

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7063

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1217

ISK

Iceland króna

138,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7730

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,861

HUF

Hungarian forint

326,47

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2998

RON

Romanian leu

4,7604

TRY

Turkish lira

6,7140

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6116

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5065

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7570

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7106

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5413

KRW

South Korean won

1 333,30

ZAR

South African rand

16,5276

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7081

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4245

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 083,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6788

PHP

Philippine peso

58,380

RUB

Russian rouble

72,8036

THB

Thai baht

35,521

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4942

MXN

Mexican peso

21,4504

INR

Indian rupee

77,8925

---

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

---

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 May 2019

(2019/C 186/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1134 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,10 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4687 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88178 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6323 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1228 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7638 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,841 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 324,74 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2887 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7553 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5590 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6098 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5029 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7386 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7095 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5361 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 325,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3022 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6903 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4220 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 032,96 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6655 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,064 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,3334 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,428 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4327 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,3092 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,8115 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1134

JPY

Japanese yen

122,10

DKK

Danish krone

7,4687

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88178

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6323

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1228

ISK

Iceland króna

138,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7638

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,841

HUF

Hungarian forint

324,74

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2887

RON

Romanian leu

4,7553

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5590

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6098

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5029

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7386

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7095

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5361

KRW

South Korean won

1 325,97

ZAR

South African rand

16,3022

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6903

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4220

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 032,96

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6655

PHP

Philippine peso

58,064

RUB

Russian rouble

72,3334

THB

Thai baht

35,428

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4327

MXN

Mexican peso

21,3092

INR

Indian rupee

77,8115

---

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

---

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 May 2019

(2019/C 186/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1151 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,27 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4680 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88693 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6390 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1214 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7915 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,816 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 324,34 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2843 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7430 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5270 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6136 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5115 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7457 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7134 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5378 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 328,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3834 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7045 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4185 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 982,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6747 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,225 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,9053 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,282 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4462 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8922 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,7410 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1151

JPY

Japanese yen

121,27

DKK

Danish krone

7,4680

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88693

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6390

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1214

ISK

Iceland króna

138,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7915

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,816

HUF

Hungarian forint

324,34

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2843

RON

Romanian leu

4,7430

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5270

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6136

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5115

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7457

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7134

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5378

KRW

South Korean won

1 328,31

ZAR

South African rand

16,3834

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7045

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4185

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 982,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6747

PHP

Philippine peso

58,225

RUB

Russian rouble

72,9053

THB

Thai baht

35,282

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4462

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8922

INR

Indian rupee

77,7410

---

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

---

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 22 May 2019

on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the name ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ (PGI)

(2019/C 186/04)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 50(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 53(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | France has sent an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ (PGI) in accordance with Article 49(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

France has sent an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ (PGI) in accordance with Article 49(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

| (2) | In accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 the Commission has examined that application and concluded that it fulfils the conditions laid down in that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 50 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 the Commission has examined that application and concluded that it fulfils the conditions laid down in that Regulation.

| (3) | In order to allow for the submission of notices of opposition in accordance with Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification, as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (2), including the amended single document and the reference to the publication of the relevant product specification, for the registered name ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ (PGI) should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to allow for the submission of notices of opposition in accordance with Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification, as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (2), including the amended single document and the reference to the publication of the relevant product specification, for the registered name ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ (PGI) should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014, including the amended single document and the reference to the publication of the relevant product specification, for the registered name ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ (PGI) is contained in the Annex to this Decision.

In accordance with Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the publication of this Decision shall confer the right to oppose to the amendment referred to in the first paragraph of this Article within three months from the date of publication of this Decision in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2019.

For the Commission

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

2

---

ANNEX

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF NON-MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION FOR A PROTECTED DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN OR PROTECTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION

Application for approval of amendments in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

‘CIDRE DE NORMANDIE’/‘CIDRE NORMAND’

EU No: PGI-FR-00089-AM01 — 4.1.2017

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

1.   Applicant group and legitimate interest

| Name: | Organisme de défense et de gestion des cidres sous indication géographique protégée [Association for the protection and management of PGI ciders] |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | 123 rue Saint-Lazare |
| 75008 Paris |
| FRANCE |

Name:

Organisme de défense et de gestion des cidres sous indication géographique protégée [Association for the protection and management of PGI ciders]

Address:

123 rue Saint-Lazare

75008 Paris

FRANCE

Tel.

+33 145222432

Fax

+33 145222485

Email:

contact@odgcidresigp.com

The group is an association governed by the Law of 1 July 1901. It comprises producers of cider fruits and processors, and therefore has a legitimate right to request amendments to the product specification.

2.   Member State or Third Country

France

3.   Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment(s)

| — | ☐ | Name of product |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☒ | Description of product |
| — | ☒ | Geographical area |
| — | ☒ | Proof of origin |
| — | ☒ | Method of production |
| — | ☒ | Link |
| — | ☒ | Labelling |
| — | ☒ | Other: updating of the contact details of the competent authority of the Member State and the applicant group, contact details of the inspection body, national requirements and annexes |

—

☐

Name of product

—

☒

Description of product

—

☒

Geographical area

—

☒

Proof of origin

—

☒

Method of production

—

☒

Link

—

☒

Labelling

—

☒

Other: updating of the contact details of the competent authority of the Member State and the applicant group, contact details of the inspection body, national requirements and annexes

4.   Type of amendment(s)

| — | ☒ | Amendments to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI not to be qualified as minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☐ | Amendments to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI for which a Single Document (or equivalent) has not been published and which cannot be qualified as minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 |

—

☒

Amendments to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI not to be qualified as minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

—

☐

Amendments to the product specification of a registered PDO or PGI for which a Single Document (or equivalent) has not been published and which cannot be qualified as minor within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

5.   Amendment(s)

5.1.   Description of product

| — | The paragraph ‘“Les cidres de Normandie” are made by fermenting musts obtained from fresh “cider fruits” grown and processed in Normandy’ has been replaced by:

  ‘“Cidre de Normandie”/“Cidre normand” is a sparkling cider made by fermenting musts obtained from fresh cider fruits (cider apples or perry pears) grown and processed in the geographical area defined in this specification.’

  This definition specifies that the cider is sparkling and may only be made from cider fruits. ‘Cidre de Normandie’ has always been made exclusively from cider fruits, due to the orchards located in the geographical area. This restriction is referred to in the paragraph on raw materials in the current specification. This clarification, which removes the ambiguity regarding the presence of other fruits, has been made in the description of the product. |
| --- | --- |

—

The paragraph ‘“Les cidres de Normandie” are made by fermenting musts obtained from fresh “cider fruits” grown and processed in Normandy’ has been replaced by:

‘“Cidre de Normandie”/“Cidre normand” is a sparkling cider made by fermenting musts obtained from fresh cider fruits (cider apples or perry pears) grown and processed in the geographical area defined in this specification.’

This definition specifies that the cider is sparkling and may only be made from cider fruits. ‘Cidre de Normandie’ has always been made exclusively from cider fruits, due to the orchards located in the geographical area. This restriction is referred to in the paragraph on raw materials in the current specification. This clarification, which removes the ambiguity regarding the presence of other fruits, has been made in the description of the product.

| — | A paragraph defining the cider fruits has been added. These are cider apples or perry pears which produce a juice with a tannin (polyphenol) content of at least 0,6 g/l of the total tannic acids, native or oxidised.
  The current specification refers to a list of recommended varieties of fruits, which is annexed to it. This list is not exhaustive and the varieties of fruits change. The indicative list of varieties has been replaced by a definition of cider fruits, which differ from dessert fruits on account of their tannin content. |
| --- | --- |

—

A paragraph defining the cider fruits has been added. These are cider apples or perry pears which produce a juice with a tannin (polyphenol) content of at least 0,6 g/l of the total tannic acids, native or oxidised.

The current specification refers to a list of recommended varieties of fruits, which is annexed to it. This list is not exhaustive and the varieties of fruits change. The indicative list of varieties has been replaced by a definition of cider fruits, which differ from dessert fruits on account of their tannin content.

| — | The paragraphs concerning the presentation of the product have been deleted. This is because the packaging referred to is indicative and corresponds to the packaging most frequently used. Thus, all packaging is authorised. |
| --- | --- |

—

The paragraphs concerning the presentation of the product have been deleted. This is because the packaging referred to is indicative and corresponds to the packaging most frequently used. Thus, all packaging is authorised.

| — | The provisions concerning the raw material have been moved to the ‘Description of the production method’ section. The final paragraph, which concerns the composition – in terms of varieties – of the orchards in Normandy, has been replaced by the following:

  ‘As the orchards comprise a wealth of varieties, balances can be found between the different types of varieties in the geographical area. Since, like sweet apples, bitter and bittersweet apples account for more than a third of the apples grown, and acidic and sour apples account for the rest, the cider producers can manipulate the fruits to find the most appropriate blends.’

  The percentages concerning the orchards planted have thus been deleted (‘High-stem orchards in Normandy consist mostly of sweet and bittersweet varieties (44 % and 37 % respectively). 60 % of the varieties planted in the new low-stem orchards are also sweet and bittersweet’) since they concerned a certain proportion of the orchards in Normandy at a specific point in time, namely those run by the operators in the original applicant group for the PGI. While the balances have not fundamentally changed, these figures have. |
| --- | --- |

—

The provisions concerning the raw material have been moved to the ‘Description of the production method’ section. The final paragraph, which concerns the composition – in terms of varieties – of the orchards in Normandy, has been replaced by the following:

‘As the orchards comprise a wealth of varieties, balances can be found between the different types of varieties in the geographical area. Since, like sweet apples, bitter and bittersweet apples account for more than a third of the apples grown, and acidic and sour apples account for the rest, the cider producers can manipulate the fruits to find the most appropriate blends.’

The percentages concerning the orchards planted have thus been deleted (‘High-stem orchards in Normandy consist mostly of sweet and bittersweet varieties (44 % and 37 % respectively). 60 % of the varieties planted in the new low-stem orchards are also sweet and bittersweet’) since they concerned a certain proportion of the orchards in Normandy at a specific point in time, namely those run by the operators in the original applicant group for the PGI. While the balances have not fundamentally changed, these figures have.

| — | The paragraph concerning the nature and characteristics of the ingredients (drinking water, sugar, additives, preservatives, sweeteners and CO2) has been deleted, apart from the sentence concerning caramel, which has been moved to the ‘Description of the production method’ section. Caramel remains the only authorised colourant.
  This information has been deleted as part of an update in the light of the requirements laid down in general national and EU legislation, particularly with regard to food additives. |
| --- | --- |

—

The paragraph concerning the nature and characteristics of the ingredients (drinking water, sugar, additives, preservatives, sweeteners and CO2) has been deleted, apart from the sentence concerning caramel, which has been moved to the ‘Description of the production method’ section. Caramel remains the only authorised colourant.

2

This information has been deleted as part of an update in the light of the requirements laid down in general national and EU legislation, particularly with regard to food additives.

| — | The paragraphs concerning the physico-chemical and organoleptic characteristics have been restructured to provide a more polished description where there is consistency in the description of the product and repetition is avoided. Three categories remain: the main physical characteristics, the chemical characteristics and the organoleptic characteristics. |
| --- | --- |

—

The paragraphs concerning the physico-chemical and organoleptic characteristics have been restructured to provide a more polished description where there is consistency in the description of the product and repetition is avoided. Three categories remain: the main physical characteristics, the chemical characteristics and the organoleptic characteristics.

| — | The main physico-chemical characteristics of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ have been specified: it ‘is a clear or cloudy drink made by fermenting musts obtained by pressing the pulp of cider fruits, with or without added water. It has bubbles and a fine foam.’
  These characteristics are identified as organoleptic characteristics in the current specification.
  Furthermore, the sentence ‘Quantities intended for industrial use and the production of composite products may be marketed regardless of whether they are sparkling’ has been added. This is because cider may be intended for industrial use, e.g. in vinegar making, or for producing composite products such as juices. Although this use was not explicitly referred to in the current specification, non-sparkling ‘Cidre de Normandie’ has been used consistently over time. |
| --- | --- |

—

The main physico-chemical characteristics of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ have been specified: it ‘is a clear or cloudy drink made by fermenting musts obtained by pressing the pulp of cider fruits, with or without added water. It has bubbles and a fine foam.’

These characteristics are identified as organoleptic characteristics in the current specification.

Furthermore, the sentence ‘Quantities intended for industrial use and the production of composite products may be marketed regardless of whether they are sparkling’ has been added. This is because cider may be intended for industrial use, e.g. in vinegar making, or for producing composite products such as juices. Although this use was not explicitly referred to in the current specification, non-sparkling ‘Cidre de Normandie’ has been used consistently over time.

| — | As regards the chemical characteristics of ‘Cidre de Normandie’, only the three target values for the minimum total alcoholic strength by volume, the minimum total actual alcoholic strength by volume and the maximum volatile acid content have been retained. As regards the minimum total alcoholic strength by volume, only the value applicable to all types of ‘Cidre de Normandie’ – 5,0 % – has been retained; the value for cidre bouché only – 5,5 % – has been removed.
  The other values (maximum iron content, maximum ethanal content, maximum total sulphur dioxide content) have been deleted as they are indicated in the national legislation applicable to all ciders (Decree No 53-978 of 30 September 1953) and are therefore not specific to ‘Cidre de Normandie’. |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the chemical characteristics of ‘Cidre de Normandie’, only the three target values for the minimum total alcoholic strength by volume, the minimum total actual alcoholic strength by volume and the maximum volatile acid content have been retained. As regards the minimum total alcoholic strength by volume, only the value applicable to all types of ‘Cidre de Normandie’ – 5,0 % – has been retained; the value for cidre bouché only – 5,5 % – has been removed.

cidre bouché

The other values (maximum iron content, maximum ethanal content, maximum total sulphur dioxide content) have been deleted as they are indicated in the national legislation applicable to all ciders (Decree No 53-978 of 30 September 1953) and are therefore not specific to ‘Cidre de Normandie’.

| — | While the organoleptic characteristics of ‘Cidre de Normandie’ have not changed in substance, the paragraphs in question have been merged into one section for ease of reading:

  ‘“Cidre de Normandie”/“Cidre normand” is characterised by powerful, varied aromas dominated by fruit (apple, citrus, peach, apricot, etc.). The colour of “Cidre de Normandie”/“Cidre normand” ranges from light yellow to dark orange. Ciders that are quite intense in colour are common; in this case, the colour is due to the fact that the blend mainly contains polyphenol-rich varieties of fruits (sweet, bittersweet, etc.) that oxidise, particularly if the pulp is fermented in vats.
  “Cidre de Normandie” is known for its appropriate balance of bitter, acidic and sweet flavours.’

  The provisions on aromas, flavours and colours take account of the fact that the ciders vary naturally according to their blend: the descriptors express the breadth of the existing range and do not apply to each cider systematically or simultaneously. |
| --- | --- |

—

While the organoleptic characteristics of ‘Cidre de Normandie’ have not changed in substance, the paragraphs in question have been merged into one section for ease of reading:

‘“Cidre de Normandie”/“Cidre normand” is characterised by powerful, varied aromas dominated by fruit (apple, citrus, peach, apricot, etc.). The colour of “Cidre de Normandie”/“Cidre normand” ranges from light yellow to dark orange. Ciders that are quite intense in colour are common; in this case, the colour is due to the fact that the blend mainly contains polyphenol-rich varieties of fruits (sweet, bittersweet, etc.) that oxidise, particularly if the pulp is fermented in vats.

“Cidre de Normandie” is known for its appropriate balance of bitter, acidic and sweet flavours.’

The provisions on aromas, flavours and colours take account of the fact that the ciders vary naturally according to their blend: the descriptors express the breadth of the existing range and do not apply to each cider systematically or simultaneously.

| — | All the other provisions not referred to above (maximum iron, ethanal and sulphur dioxide content and the specific characteristics of the particular type of cider) have been deleted. This is because they are covered by the general legislation applicable to ciders, which defines, in particular, their different types (bouché, doux, brut and demi-sec). |
| --- | --- |

—

All the other provisions not referred to above (maximum iron, ethanal and sulphur dioxide content and the specific characteristics of the particular type of cider) have been deleted. This is because they are covered by the general legislation applicable to ciders, which defines, in particular, their different types (bouché, doux, brut and demi-sec).

bouché

doux

brut

demi-sec

5.2.   Geographical area

Geographical area

The paragraph ‘“Cidres de Normandie” (ciders and concentrated musts) are produced exclusively in Normandy. Normandy is understood to be the region made up of the following departments’ has been replaced by:

‘The harvesting of the cider fruits and the production of “Cidre de Normandie”, not including packaging, are carried out in the geographical area made up of the municipalities specified below.

The geographical area is based on the historical region of Normandy and the small regions attached to it (Perche, Domfrontais, Plaine d'Alençon, Pays de Bray). It spans the departments of the administrative region of Normandy, plus a small portion of the neighbouring departments of Mayenne, Sarthe, Eure-et-Loir and Oise.’

In the current specification, both departments and cantons are referred to in the definition of the geographical area. The cantons have been replaced by a list of the municipalities they contain, since the municipalities are less likely to change.

A map of the geographical area has been added.

These editorial changes do not alter the definition of the geographical area.

5.3.   Proof of origin

Proof of origin

| — | The paragraph ‘“Cidres de Normandie” must be produced, but not necessarily packaged, in production facilities located in the geographical area only’ has been deleted. As the provisions it contains describe the stages that must be carried out in the geographical area, they have been moved to the ‘Definition of the geographical area’ section. |
| --- | --- |

—

The paragraph ‘“Cidres de Normandie” must be produced, but not necessarily packaged, in production facilities located in the geographical area only’ has been deleted. As the provisions it contains describe the stages that must be carried out in the geographical area, they have been moved to the ‘Definition of the geographical area’ section.

| — | In general, the section on proof of origin has been supplemented in order to emphasise the traceability requirement. It has thus been specified that operators must ensure traceability and register with the group. |
| --- | --- |

—

In general, the section on proof of origin has been supplemented in order to emphasise the traceability requirement. It has thus been specified that operators must ensure traceability and register with the group.

| — | Changes have been made to the following paragraphs:






  — | Information on the packaging: this paragraph has been deleted as it contains general obligations concerning the labelling of the product and not traceability. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Changes have been made to the following paragraphs:

—

Information on the packaging: this paragraph has been deleted as it contains general obligations concerning the labelling of the product and not traceability.

| — | Information on production monitoring: the word ‘fabrication’ has been replaced by ‘élaboration’, which is the appropriate French term for ‘production’ in the context of cider making. The term ‘production record’ has been removed as it is a type of document that may be incorporated in the stock records system, which allows the corresponding information to be tracked. |
| --- | --- |

—

Information on production monitoring: the word ‘fabrication’ has been replaced by ‘élaboration’, which is the appropriate French term for ‘production’ in the context of cider making. The term ‘production record’ has been removed as it is a type of document that may be incorporated in the stock records system, which allows the corresponding information to be tracked.

| — | Raw materials:
  The words ‘from a region other than Normandy’ have been replaced by ‘from outside the geographical area’ to clearly distinguish the fruits that may be used to produce ‘Cidre de Normandie’ from other fruits.
  The ‘transport document’ has been replaced by a ‘delivery note’ for each of the consignments delivered. The type of fruits (cider fruits) is specified on delivery notes, which makes them more precise. |
| --- | --- |

—

Raw materials:

The words ‘from a region other than Normandy’ have been replaced by ‘from outside the geographical area’ to clearly distinguish the fruits that may be used to produce ‘Cidre de Normandie’ from other fruits.

The ‘transport document’ has been replaced by a ‘delivery note’ for each of the consignments delivered. The type of fruits (cider fruits) is specified on delivery notes, which makes them more precise.

| — | Production: this paragraph has been merged with the paragraph concerning packaging and distribution. The wording has been revised in order to clarify the provisions:
  the words ‘the documents specified below’ have been replaced by ‘the stock records’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Production: this paragraph has been merged with the paragraph concerning packaging and distribution. The wording has been revised in order to clarify the provisions:

the words ‘the documents specified below’ have been replaced by ‘the stock records’.

| — | The information in the paragraph concerning packaging and distribution has been deleted, except where it concerns traceability. This is because it related to packaging, which is a stage that does not have to take place in the geographical area. |
| --- | --- |

—

The information in the paragraph concerning packaging and distribution has been deleted, except where it concerns traceability. This is because it related to packaging, which is a stage that does not have to take place in the geographical area.

| — | A provision has been added regarding a declaration of the quantities produced, as well as the obligation for cider fruit producers to keep records (location of parcels, corresponding varieties, distinction between categories of cider fruits and dessert fruits) and the obligation for other operators to keep stock records or equivalent accounting documents (incoming and outgoing cider fruits, musts or concentrated musts and cider). |
| --- | --- |

—

A provision has been added regarding a declaration of the quantities produced, as well as the obligation for cider fruit producers to keep records (location of parcels, corresponding varieties, distinction between categories of cider fruits and dessert fruits) and the obligation for other operators to keep stock records or equivalent accounting documents (incoming and outgoing cider fruits, musts or concentrated musts and cider).

| — | A table providing an overview of traceability has been added. |
| --- | --- |

—

A table providing an overview of traceability has been added.

5.4.   Method of production

Method of production

| — | Raw materials:
  This paragraph has been added to the description of the production method. It includes information contained in the ‘Description of the product’ section of the current specification (categories of varieties of cider fruits based on their characteristics – tannin content, acidity).
  The reference to a list of recommended varieties of cider fruits has been replaced by a definition of cider fruits (apples and pears which produce a juice with a tannin (polyphenol) content of at least 0,6 g/l of the total tannic acids, native or oxidised).
  A wide range of varieties of cider fruits, with complementing flavours, are used in the production of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’. Only some of these varieties appear in the current specification, as part of a restrictive and inconsistent list of ‘recommended’ varieties. For example, the varieties recommended in the Orders of 20 April 1967 and 30 May 1980 do not all appear in the list, even though they all fall within the definition of the raw material. Likewise, some traditional local varieties are not listed, even though they are extremely common. In order to ensure consistency and accuracy, and since it is difficult to establish lists of varieties that are fully comprehensive, analytical criteria for distinguishing cider fruits have been adopted. Tannins are characteristic of cider fruits and, together with acidity, are used to classify the varieties in flavour groups for the purpose of blending. Thus, within the pool of cider fruits, varieties are typically divided into five general categories, which allow the cidermakers to classify them.
  Therefore, in the sentence ‘The varieties of cider fruits are classified in six categories, which have the following main characteristics’, ‘six’ has been replaced by ‘five’ in order to correct a clerical error. |
| --- | --- |

—

Raw materials:

This paragraph has been added to the description of the production method. It includes information contained in the ‘Description of the product’ section of the current specification (categories of varieties of cider fruits based on their characteristics – tannin content, acidity).

The reference to a list of recommended varieties of cider fruits has been replaced by a definition of cider fruits (apples and pears which produce a juice with a tannin (polyphenol) content of at least 0,6 g/l of the total tannic acids, native or oxidised).

A wide range of varieties of cider fruits, with complementing flavours, are used in the production of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’. Only some of these varieties appear in the current specification, as part of a restrictive and inconsistent list of ‘recommended’ varieties. For example, the varieties recommended in the Orders of 20 April 1967 and 30 May 1980 do not all appear in the list, even though they all fall within the definition of the raw material. Likewise, some traditional local varieties are not listed, even though they are extremely common. In order to ensure consistency and accuracy, and since it is difficult to establish lists of varieties that are fully comprehensive, analytical criteria for distinguishing cider fruits have been adopted. Tannins are characteristic of cider fruits and, together with acidity, are used to classify the varieties in flavour groups for the purpose of blending. Thus, within the pool of cider fruits, varieties are typically divided into five general categories, which allow the cidermakers to classify them.

Therefore, in the sentence ‘The varieties of cider fruits are classified in six categories, which have the following main characteristics’, ‘six’ has been replaced by ‘five’ in order to correct a clerical error.

| — | Production stages:
  In the ‘Mixing and pressing of the fruit’ section, it has been added that cider fruits grown in the geographical area of the PGI must be clean when they enter the processing chain. This requirement is linked to the fact that the obligation to wash the fruit has been removed, given that fruit that was harvested manually and/or was not in contact with the ground does not have to be washed.
  In the ‘Pre-fermentation clarification’ section, the methods listed (keeving, depectinisation, separation procedures, etc.) have been replaced by the expression ‘authorised and established practices and treatments’. This is because there is no obligation always to use all the procedures listed. The use of these procedures depends on the operators' know-how.
  In the ‘Fermentation’ section, the authorised practices (mixing, sweetening, and using sugar to make cidre bouché) have been deleted as they are covered by the general legislation.
  In the ‘Post-fermentation clarification’ section, it has been specified that fining is – or is not – followed by centrifugation and/or filtration. The aim of both centrifugation and filtration is to accelerate the settling of suspended particles and to retain them in order to obtain a clearer product. These procedures influence the appearance of the cider but not its taste. Making them optional after fining does not have a significant impact on the product.
  In the title of the ‘Secondary fermentation or carbonation’ section, the French word ‘carbonisation’ has been replaced by ‘gazéification’, which is already authorised under the current specification.
  The aim of this amendment is to prevent any confusion between the two French terms, which are equivalent: the ‘gazéification’ (carbonation) of drinks refers, in the food industry, specifically to adding CO2 (carbonisation) in order to obtain a fizzy drink (boisson gazeuse).
  The provisions concerning bottling and storage have been deleted as they do not impose specific restrictions.
  A product life cycle diagram summarising the different stages in the production of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ has been added. |
| --- | --- |

—

Production stages:

In the ‘Mixing and pressing of the fruit’ section, it has been added that cider fruits grown in the geographical area of the PGI must be clean when they enter the processing chain. This requirement is linked to the fact that the obligation to wash the fruit has been removed, given that fruit that was harvested manually and/or was not in contact with the ground does not have to be washed.

In the ‘Pre-fermentation clarification’ section, the methods listed (keeving, depectinisation, separation procedures, etc.) have been replaced by the expression ‘authorised and established practices and treatments’. This is because there is no obligation always to use all the procedures listed. The use of these procedures depends on the operators' know-how.

In the ‘Fermentation’ section, the authorised practices (mixing, sweetening, and using sugar to make cidre bouché) have been deleted as they are covered by the general legislation.

cidre bouché

In the ‘Post-fermentation clarification’ section, it has been specified that fining is – or is not – followed by centrifugation and/or filtration. The aim of both centrifugation and filtration is to accelerate the settling of suspended particles and to retain them in order to obtain a clearer product. These procedures influence the appearance of the cider but not its taste. Making them optional after fining does not have a significant impact on the product.

In the title of the ‘Secondary fermentation or carbonation’ section, the French word ‘carbonisation’ has been replaced by ‘gazéification’, which is already authorised under the current specification.

carbonisation

gazéification

The aim of this amendment is to prevent any confusion between the two French terms, which are equivalent: the ‘gazéification’ (carbonation) of drinks refers, in the food industry, specifically to adding CO2 (carbonisation) in order to obtain a fizzy drink (boisson gazeuse).

gazéification

2

carbonisation

boisson gazeuse

The provisions concerning bottling and storage have been deleted as they do not impose specific restrictions.

A product life cycle diagram summarising the different stages in the production of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ has been added.

5.5.   Link

Link

The ‘Causal link’ section has been divided into three parts in order to better define the specific characteristics of the geographical area and the product, as well as the causal link. The amendments are textual and do not entail any substantive changes.

5.6.   Labelling

Labelling

The specific labelling details only include the obligation to indicate the name of the drink: ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’.

The other provisions set out in this section of the current specification have been deleted. Most of them are covered by the national legislation applicable either to ciders (optional information concerning cidre bouché, pure juice, natural effervescence, the presence of natural foam, etc.) or to a broader category of products (conformity certification). Other provisions are not binding (the option to inform consumers about the nature, origin, production, particularities and organoleptic characteristics of the product).

cidre bouché

The requirement to indicate the inspection body on the labelling has been removed. This information is available elsewhere and the body may be required to change.

As it has been mandatory to include the PGI logo on the labelling since 4 January 2016, the reference to the requirement to include the indications ‘PGI’ and/or ‘Protected Geographical Indication’ has also been removed.

5.7.   Other

Other

—   Updating of the contact details

Updating of the contact details

The contact details of the national quality and origin institute, the Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité - INAO, have been added as the competent authority of the Member State in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Furthermore, as there have been changes in the organisation of the sector, the name and contact details of the applicant group have been amended.

—   Inspection body

Inspection body

The contact details of the inspection body have been replaced by those of the competent authority for inspections. The aim of this amendment is to avoid having to amend the specification if the inspection body changes.

—   National requirements

National requirements

A table setting out the main inspection areas has been added.

—   Annexes

Annexes

The annexes to the current specification have been removed since they contain either non-binding information or requirements concerning the geographical area which are included in the specification itself.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘CIDRE DE NORMANDIE’/‘CIDRE NORMAND’

‘CIDRE DE NORMANDIE’/‘CIDRE NORMAND’

EU No: PGI-FR-00089-AM01 — 4.1.2017

EU No: PGI-FR-00089-AM01 — 4.1.2017

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

1.   Name(s)

Name(s)

‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Member State or Third Country

France

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Type of product

Class 1.8. – other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices etc.)

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

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

‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ is a sparkling cider made by fermenting musts obtained from fresh cider fruits (cider apples or perry pears) grown and processed in the geographical area.

The cider fruit musts may, in part, comprise concentrated musts, provided that the proportion of concentrated musts does not exceed 40 % of the total volume of musts used (expressed as reconstituted musts).

As the orchards comprise a wealth of varieties, balances can be found between the different types of varieties in the geographical area. Since, like sweet apples, bitter and bittersweet apples account for more than a third of the apples grown, and acidic and sour apples account for the rest, the cider producers can manipulate the fruits to find the most appropriate blends.

‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ is a clear or cloudy drink made by fermenting musts obtained by pressing the pulp of cider fruits, with or without added water. It has bubbles and a fine foam.

The effervescence is caused by the presence of CO2, which is produced by fermentation and/or added.

2

Quantities intended for industrial use and the production of composite products may be marketed regardless of whether they are sparkling.

The colour of ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ ranges from light yellow to orange. It has powerful, varied aromas dominated by fruit (apple, citrus, peach, apricot, etc.) and an appropriate balance of bitter, acidic and sweet flavours.

3.3.   Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

The fruits used to produce ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ are cider fruits. Dessert fruits may not be used. Cider fruits are defined as apples and pears used to make cider which produce a juice with a tannin (polyphenol) content of at least 0,6 g/l of the total tannic acids, native or oxidised.

3.4.   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

Producing fruits and processing them into cider (producing musts by pressing the fruits, producing cider by fermenting the musts). Raw juices obtained using unheated water; cold fermentation or fermentation at room temperature. The only authorised colourant is caramel.

3.5.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

—

3.6.   Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

The name of the drink must be indicated: ‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Concise definition of the geographical area

| — | Department of Seine-Maritime: all municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Seine-Maritime: all municipalities;

| — | Department of Eure: all municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Eure: all municipalities;

| — | Department of Calvados: all municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Calvados: all municipalities;

| — | Department of Manche: all municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Manche: all municipalities;

| — | Department of Orne: all municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Orne: all municipalities;

| — | Department of Oise: the following municipalities: Blacourt, Le Coudray-Saint-Germer, Cuigy-en-Bray, Espaubourg, Flavacourt, Hodenc-en-Bray, Labosse, Lachapelle-aux-Pots, Lalande-en-Son, Lalandelle, Puiseux-en-Bray, Saint-Aubin-en-Bray, Saint-Germer-de-Fly, Saint-Pierre-es-Champs, Sérifontaine, Talmontiers, Le Vaumain, Le Vauroux, Abancourt, Blargies, Boutavent, Bouvresse, Broquiers, Campeaux, Canny-sur-Thérain, Escles-Saint-Pierre, Formerie, Fouilloy, Gourchelles, Héricourt-sur-Thérain, Lannoy-Cuillère, Moliens, Monceaux-l'Abbaye, Mureaumont, Omécourt, Quincampoix-Fleuzy, Romescamps, Saint-Arnoult, Saint-Samson-la-Poterie, Saint-Valery, Villers-Vermont, Elencourt, Beaudéduit, Briot, Brombos, Cempuis, Daméraucourt, Dargies, Feuquières, Grandvilliers, Grez, Halloy, Le Hamel, Hautbos, Lavacquerie, Laverrière, Le Mesnil-Conteville, Offoy, Saint-Maur, Saint-Thibault, Sarcus, Sarnois, Sommereux, Thieuloy-Saint-Antoine, Achy, Blicourt, Bonnières, Fontaine-Lavaganne, Gaudechart, Haute-Épine, Hétomesnil, Lihus, Marseille-en-Beauvaisis, Milly-sur-Thérain, La Neuville-sur-Oudeuil, La Neuville-Vault, Oudeuil, Pisseleu, Prévillers, Rothois, Roy-Boissy, Saint-Omer-en-Chaussée, Villers-sur-Bonnières, Bazancourt, Buicourt, Crillon, Ernemont-Boutavent, Escames, Fontenay-Torcy, Gerberoy, Glatigny, Grémévillers, Hannaches, Hanvoile, Haucourt, Hécourt, Lachapelle-sous-Gerberoy, Lhéraule, Loueuse, Martincourt, Morvillers, Saint-Deniscourt, Saint-Quentin-des-Prés, Senantes, Songeons, Sully, Thérines, Villembray, Villers-sur-Auchy, Vrocourt, Wambez. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Oise: the following municipalities: Blacourt, Le Coudray-Saint-Germer, Cuigy-en-Bray, Espaubourg, Flavacourt, Hodenc-en-Bray, Labosse, Lachapelle-aux-Pots, Lalande-en-Son, Lalandelle, Puiseux-en-Bray, Saint-Aubin-en-Bray, Saint-Germer-de-Fly, Saint-Pierre-es-Champs, Sérifontaine, Talmontiers, Le Vaumain, Le Vauroux, Abancourt, Blargies, Boutavent, Bouvresse, Broquiers, Campeaux, Canny-sur-Thérain, Escles-Saint-Pierre, Formerie, Fouilloy, Gourchelles, Héricourt-sur-Thérain, Lannoy-Cuillère, Moliens, Monceaux-l'Abbaye, Mureaumont, Omécourt, Quincampoix-Fleuzy, Romescamps, Saint-Arnoult, Saint-Samson-la-Poterie, Saint-Valery, Villers-Vermont, Elencourt, Beaudéduit, Briot, Brombos, Cempuis, Daméraucourt, Dargies, Feuquières, Grandvilliers, Grez, Halloy, Le Hamel, Hautbos, Lavacquerie, Laverrière, Le Mesnil-Conteville, Offoy, Saint-Maur, Saint-Thibault, Sarcus, Sarnois, Sommereux, Thieuloy-Saint-Antoine, Achy, Blicourt, Bonnières, Fontaine-Lavaganne, Gaudechart, Haute-Épine, Hétomesnil, Lihus, Marseille-en-Beauvaisis, Milly-sur-Thérain, La Neuville-sur-Oudeuil, La Neuville-Vault, Oudeuil, Pisseleu, Prévillers, Rothois, Roy-Boissy, Saint-Omer-en-Chaussée, Villers-sur-Bonnières, Bazancourt, Buicourt, Crillon, Ernemont-Boutavent, Escames, Fontenay-Torcy, Gerberoy, Glatigny, Grémévillers, Hannaches, Hanvoile, Haucourt, Hécourt, Lachapelle-sous-Gerberoy, Lhéraule, Loueuse, Martincourt, Morvillers, Saint-Deniscourt, Saint-Quentin-des-Prés, Senantes, Songeons, Sully, Thérines, Villembray, Villers-sur-Auchy, Vrocourt, Wambez.

| — | Department of Eure-et-Loir: the following municipalities: Argenvilliers, (Les) Autels-Villevillon, Authon-du-Perche, (La) Bazoche-Gouet, Beaumont-les-Autels, Béthonvilliers, Brunelles, Champrond-en-Perchet, Chapelle-Guillaume, Chapelle-Royale, Charbonnières, Coudray-au-Perche, (Les) Étilleux, (La) Gaudaine, Luigny, Margon Miermaigne, Moulhard, Nogent-le-Rotrou, Saint-Bomer, Saint-Jean-Pierre-Fixte, Soizé, Souancé-au-Perche, Trizay-Coutretot-Saint-Serge, Vichères. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Eure-et-Loir: the following municipalities: Argenvilliers, (Les) Autels-Villevillon, Authon-du-Perche, (La) Bazoche-Gouet, Beaumont-les-Autels, Béthonvilliers, Brunelles, Champrond-en-Perchet, Chapelle-Guillaume, Chapelle-Royale, Charbonnières, Coudray-au-Perche, (Les) Étilleux, (La) Gaudaine, Luigny, Margon Miermaigne, Moulhard, Nogent-le-Rotrou, Saint-Bomer, Saint-Jean-Pierre-Fixte, Soizé, Souancé-au-Perche, Trizay-Coutretot-Saint-Serge, Vichères.

| — | Department of Mayenne: the following municipalities: Ambrières-les-Vallées, Chantrigné, Couesmes-Vaucé, La Haie-Traversaine, Le Pas, St-Loup-du-Gast, Soucé, Le Housseau-Brétignolles, Lassay-les-Châteaux, Rennes-en Grenouilles, St-Julien-du-Terroux, Ste-Marie-du-Bois, Thuboeuf, Gorron, Hercé, Lesbois, St-Aubin-Fosse-Louvain, Vieuvy, Désertines, Boulay-les-Ifs, Champfremont, Ravigny, St-Pierre-des-Nids, Champéon, Charchigné, Le Horps, Montreuil-Poulay, Le Ribay. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Mayenne: the following municipalities: Ambrières-les-Vallées, Chantrigné, Couesmes-Vaucé, La Haie-Traversaine, Le Pas, St-Loup-du-Gast, Soucé, Le Housseau-Brétignolles, Lassay-les-Châteaux, Rennes-en Grenouilles, St-Julien-du-Terroux, Ste-Marie-du-Bois, Thuboeuf, Gorron, Hercé, Lesbois, St-Aubin-Fosse-Louvain, Vieuvy, Désertines, Boulay-les-Ifs, Champfremont, Ravigny, St-Pierre-des-Nids, Champéon, Charchigné, Le Horps, Montreuil-Poulay, Le Ribay.

| — | Department of Sarthe: the following municipalities: Nogent-le-Bernard, Avezé, Dehault, La-Chapelle-du-Bois, La-Ferté-Bernard, Préval, St-Aubin-des-Coudrais, Louzes, Neufchâtel-en-Saosnois, Assé-le-Boisne, Douillet-le-Joly, Montreuil-le-Chétif, St-Aubin-de-Locquenay, St-Georges-le-Gaultier, St-Léonard-des-Bois, St-Paul-le-Gaultier, Sougé-le-Ganelon, Ancinnes, Gesnes-le-Gandelin, Moulins-le-Carbonnel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Sarthe: the following municipalities: Nogent-le-Bernard, Avezé, Dehault, La-Chapelle-du-Bois, La-Ferté-Bernard, Préval, St-Aubin-des-Coudrais, Louzes, Neufchâtel-en-Saosnois, Assé-le-Boisne, Douillet-le-Joly, Montreuil-le-Chétif, St-Aubin-de-Locquenay, St-Georges-le-Gaultier, St-Léonard-des-Bois, St-Paul-le-Gaultier, Sougé-le-Ganelon, Ancinnes, Gesnes-le-Gandelin, Moulins-le-Carbonnel.

5.   Link with the geographical area

Link with the geographical area

From a geological point of view, Normandy is part of the Armorican Massif to the west and the Paris Basin to the east. The region has a mild and damp climate, with no shortage of water in summer. The climate type is oceanic. Winters are relatively mild on the coast but harsher inland. Summers are cool and wet. Rainfall is relatively heavy. The geological diversity results in rather varied landscapes, although the variety is limited by the mild and damp climate. As a consequence, certain meadow and bocage landscapes are identical in many parts of Normandy.

bocage

As a result of the favourable natural conditions, especially the levels of precipitation, cider fruit orchards became widespread throughout Normandy, having first been planted in the Middle Ages using varieties from Spain (Biscay).

Thus, Normandy became France's main producer of cider fruits (cider apples and perry pears).

The fruits used come from the geographical area, which is one of the major historical and current cider-producing regions in Europe and where extensive and recognised production know-how has developed.

The producers and, later, the local plant breeders and nurserymen selected and improved the plant material and adapted it to Normandy's climate and soil conditions. This led to the emergence of a great many varieties of cider apples and perry pears characterised by their tannin content, as well as to the development of special technological skills. By obtaining or introducing new varieties that are adapted to local production and processing conditions, the number of varieties continues to increase and ensures that the biodiversity of the genetic resource is maintained.

Specific know-how in the field of processing also originated in Normandy.

Likewise, cider is rooted in Normandy's history and cuisine. Its use is extremely common in cooking.

The increasingly widespread consumption of cider over time led to an evolution in production methods. Until the mid-19th century, cider was produced on farms. Subsequently, craftsmen and industrialists, boosted by the increase in consumption, started to produce the drink, relying on mastery of the production process (clarification, cold storage, pasteurisation, carbonation, etc.) in order to grow.

Mechanical pressing techniques enabled the juice yield to be increased, without undermining the specific characteristics of the fruits.

From the beginning of the 20th century, filtration techniques were gradually developed in order to improve the stability of the ciders. Around the 1950s, large cider producers began to pasteurise sweet ciders in order to improve their keeping quality, prevent micro-organisms from developing and enable them to be shipped further afield with less risk.

This established know-how, which was applied to the raw material used, enabled the growth in production of a reputed cider whose consumption became rooted in the heritage of the region before spreading elsewhere.

In Normandy, tradition has it that the secret of cider making was brought by the sailors of Biscay in the sixth century. In fact, the consumption of cider only really took off in the 12th century, first in the valleys of the Touques and the Risle, then in the Cotentin Peninsula and finally in the Pays de Caux. In the 14th century, cider began to take the place of cervoise, and, in Normandy, roughly as much cider was sold as wine. By the 15th century, following the Hundred Years' War, cider had become the common drink of Lower and Mid-Normandy. From the 16th century, real advances were made in cider making thanks to Guillaume de Dursus's arrival in the Cotentin Peninsula. A native of Biscay, de Dursus improved the varieties of cider apples grown. His example was followed by other local noblemen, who began to select and nurture the varieties. As, under Louis XIII, the vineyards of Normandy were torn up almost entirely because of the taxes on wines, apple growing continued to develop and the consumption of cider increased further. But later, because of wars, taxes and general hardship, interest in apple trees and cider waned.

cervoise

From the 18th century, intendants, agricultural organisations and the Council of State worked together to improve and encourage apple growing. In the 19th century, cider production resumed and consumption grew strongly after 1870.

Cider production and processing experienced a major boom in the 19th and early 20th centuries as, until the Second World War, companies were taking advantage of the surge in distillation (State alcohol market, in particular).

In the 1920s, domestic production of cider exceeded that of beer. In the years of high production, the departments of Manche, Calvados, Seine-Inférieure and Orne produced well over one million hectolitres of cider. Since the 1920s, Normandy has been France's leading cider-apple-producing region – and this is still the case today.

Normandy currently accounts for almost 45 % of the total cider production in France.

‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ is made from specific fruits – cider apples or perry pears – which have specific characteristics, particularly in terms of polyphenols, but not dessert fruits. The use of perry pears is authorised; traditionally, they may be included in a blend on account, in particular, of their acidity. The cider is clear or cloudy, depending, in particular, on the degree of filtration, and has a light yellow to orange colour, depending on the varieties of fruits and procedures used. It boasts a wide array of flavours, which is balanced between the flavours provided by the different varieties of fruits and the sweetness resulting from the non-fermented sugars. The effervescence of the ciders, which is characterised by the fineness of the bubbles, is not harsh on the palate.

‘Cidre de Normandie’/‘Cidre normand’ has a strong reputation built on a strong regional identity and the development of a sector specific to the region.

Local stakeholders have developed a diversified cider production process over many years. Its originality is due to the use of cider fruits – apples and sometimes pears, which, in Normandy, may be used to balance the acidity of the blend – and the stakeholders' mastery of cider-making know-how.

The favourable physical conditions for cider making (but not for wine growing), which include a mild and damp climate and no water shortage in summer, have enabled the cultivation of cider apple and perry pear trees.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, Normandy has been the location of France's biggest stock of cider apple trees, which has made the region the recognised home of the tree. The mastery of valuable know-how concerning the production of cider, including the search for varieties with a particular tannin content that have been adapted and established, has enabled the development of a specific product recognised by consumers.

The techniques of mechanical pressing, pre- and post-fermentation clarification and fermentation, as well as the know-how linked to blending, have, over time, allowed the best qualities to be drawn from the fruits and the specific characteristics of the product to be maintained.

Finally, thanks to the development of know-how in the field of stabilisation and conservation of ciders (bottling, filtration, pasteurisation, etc.) and the adoption of new techniques, the availability of Normandy ciders on the market has gradually increased.

All of these factors have made it possible to produce quality ciders recognised as part of the region's cultural and culinary heritage.

As ‘Cidre de Normandie’ is available throughout France, its consumption has become less regional; however, at the same time, the product has maintained its specific regional character and built up its reputation.

From a cultural and gastronomic point of view, consumers strongly associate the image of apple trees with the Normandy landscape. Thus, ‘Cidre de Normandie’ is firmly anchored in the national psyche and cider is the classic Normandy drink.

The many ‘cider festivals’ (Barenton, Beuvron-en-Auge, Vimoutiers, Le Sap, Auffay, Forges-les-Eaux, etc.) and the tasting competitions (the regional Saint-Jean des Cidres contest and more localised competitions, e.g. in the Pays de Caux) are proof that the product is rooted in the heart of Normandy and of its reputation.

Reference to publication of the specification

Reference to publication of the specification

(the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of this Regulation)

https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-830d0e1e-32b9-4d63-82b9-f99ef2dce5d5/telechargement

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/14

---

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor regarding the participation in the negotiations in view of a Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Cybercrime Convention

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu)

(2019/C 186/05)

On 5 February 2019, the European Commission issued a Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to participate on behalf of the Union in the negotiations of a second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. The Annex to the Recommendation sets out the recommended Council’s directives to negotiate the protocol. This protocol aims to improve the traditional cooperation channel and to include provisions for direct cooperation between law enforcement authorities and service providers cross-border as well as provisions on trans-border direct access to data by law enforcement authorities.

The EDPS welcomes and actively supports the recommendation of the European Commission to be authorised to negotiate, on behalf of the European Union, a second additional protocol to the Cybercrime Convention. As the EDPS has long argued, the EU needs sustainable arrangements for sharing personal data with third countries for law enforcement purposes, fully compatible with the EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Even when investigating domestic cases, law enforcement authorities increasingly find themselves in ‘cross-border situations’ because information is stored electronically in a third country. The growing volume of requests and the volatility of digital information put a strain on existing models of cooperation, such as MLATs. The EDPS understands that authorities face a race against time to obtain data for their investigations and supports efforts to devise new models of cooperation, including in the context of cooperation with third countries.

This Opinion aims to provide constructive and objective advice to the EU institutions as the Council has to deliver its directives before the start of this delicate task, with broad ramifications. The EDPS stresses the need to ensure full respect for fundamental rights, including privacy and the protection of personal data. While the EDPS recognises that it is not possible to replicate entirely the terminology and definitions of EU law in an agreement with third countries, the safeguards for individuals must be clear and effective in order to fully comply with EU primary law. The Court of Justice of the European Union in recent years has affirmed data protection principles including fairness, accuracy and relevance of information, independent oversight and individual rights of individuals. These principles are as relevant for public bodies as they are for private companies and become all the more important considering the sensitivity of the data required for criminal investigations.

Many safeguards already envisaged are welcome, but they should be reinforced. The EDPS has identified three main improvements which he recommends for the negotiating directives, in order to ensure compliance with the Charter and Article 16 TFEU:

| — | ensuring the mandatory nature of the envisaged protocol, |
| --- | --- |

—

ensuring the mandatory nature of the envisaged protocol,

| — | including detailed safeguards, including the purpose limitation principle, due to the various potential signatories, not all of them being parties to the Convention 108 or having concluded an equivalent agreement to the EU-US Umbrella agreement, |
| --- | --- |

—

including detailed safeguards, including the purpose limitation principle, due to the various potential signatories, not all of them being parties to the Convention 108 or having concluded an equivalent agreement to the EU-US Umbrella agreement,

| — | opposing any provisions on direct access to data. |
| --- | --- |

—

opposing any provisions on direct access to data.

Additionally, the Opinion offers further recommendations for improvements and clarifications of the negotiating directives. The EDPS remains at the disposal of the institutions for further advice during the negotiations and before the finalisation of the protocol.

1.   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

| 1. | On 17 April 2018, the Commission issued a package of two legislative proposals: a Proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (1) (hereinafter ‘the e-evidence Proposal’), and a Proposal for a Directive laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings (2). While work is ongoing at the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union (the Council) has reached a general approach on those two proposals (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | On 5 February 2019, the Commission adopted two recommendations for Council Decisions: a Recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations in view of an international agreement between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US) on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters (4) and a Recommendation to authorise the participation of the Commission, on behalf of the EU, in negotiations on a second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No 185) (hereinafter ‘the Recommendation’) (5). The first recommendation is the subject of a separate EDPS Opinion (6). However, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) considers that both negotiations with the US and at the Council of Europe are closely linked. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The Recommendation was adopted on the basis of the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for agreements concluded between the EU and third countries. With this Recommendation, the Commission seeks to obtain authorisation from the Council to be appointed as the negotiator on behalf of the EU for the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention on cybercrime (CETS No 185) (7), along the negotiating directives annexed to the Recommendation. The Annex to the Recommendation (hereinafter ‘the Annex’) is of utmost importance since it lays down the recommended Council’s directives to the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the EU, the protocol. Once the negotiations are completed, in order for the agreement to be concluded, the European Parliament will have to give its consent to the text of the agreement negotiated, after which, the Council will have to adopt a decision concluding the agreement. The EDPS expects to be consulted on the text of the draft agreement in due course in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | The EDPS welcomes that he has been consulted following the adoption of the Recommendation by the European Commission pursuant to Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. The EDPS also welcomes the reference to this Opinion in Recital 8 of the Recommendation. He wishes to underline that this Opinion is without prejudice to any additional comments that the EDPS could make on the basis of further available information, the provisions of the draft protocol during the negotiations and legislative developments in third countries. |
| --- | --- |

4.

5.   CONCLUSIONS

| 58. | The EDPS understands the need for law enforcement authorities to secure and obtain electronic evidence quickly and effectively. He is in favour of using innovative approaches to obtain cross-border access to electronic evidence and finding an EU response to existing issues in this context. A second additional protocol to be negotiated at EU level would better preserve the level of protection guaranteed by the EU data protection framework and ensure a consistent level of protection throughout the EU, rather than distinct agreements concluded by Member States bilaterally. Therefore, this Opinion aims to provide constructive and objective advice to the EU institutions as the Commission seeks to obtain authorisation from the Council to participate in the negotiations in view of this protocol. |
| --- | --- |

58.

| 59. | The EDPS welcomes that the mandate aims at ensuring that the protocol contains appropriate safeguards for data protection. |
| --- | --- |

59.

| 60. | There are three major recommendations, the EDPS makes for the envisaged protocol to ensure compliance with the Charter and Article 16 TFEU. The EDPS recommends that the negotiating directives aim at:






  — | ensuring the mandatory nature of the envisaged protocol, |
| --- | --- | --- |

60.

—

ensuring the mandatory nature of the envisaged protocol,

| — | introducing detailed safeguards — including the principle of purpose limitation — due to the various potential signatories, not all of them being parties to the Convention 108 or having concluded an equivalent agreement to the EU-US Umbrella agreement, |
| --- | --- |

—

introducing detailed safeguards — including the principle of purpose limitation — due to the various potential signatories, not all of them being parties to the Convention 108 or having concluded an equivalent agreement to the EU-US Umbrella agreement,

| — | opposing any provisions on direct access to data. |
| --- | --- |

—

opposing any provisions on direct access to data.

| 61. | In addition to these general recommendations, the recommendations and comments of the EDPS in the present Opinion relate to the following specific aspects:






  — | the legal basis of the Council Decision, |
| --- | --- | --- |

61.

—

the legal basis of the Council Decision,

| — | the onward transfers by third countries competent authorities, |
| --- | --- |

—

the onward transfers by third countries competent authorities,

| — | the rights of data subjects, in particular the right to information and the right of access, |
| --- | --- |

—

the rights of data subjects, in particular the right to information and the right of access,

| — | the control by an independent authority, |
| --- | --- |

—

the control by an independent authority,

| — | the judicial redress and administrative remedies, |
| --- | --- |

—

the judicial redress and administrative remedies,

| — | the criminal offences covered by the envisaged protocol and the categories of personal data, |
| --- | --- |

—

the criminal offences covered by the envisaged protocol and the categories of personal data,

| — | the specific safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of security of the data transferred, |
| --- | --- |

—

the specific safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of security of the data transferred,

| — | the specific safeguards for data protected by privileges and immunities, |
| --- | --- |

—

the specific safeguards for data protected by privileges and immunities,

| — | the emergency mutual assistance, |
| --- | --- |

—

the emergency mutual assistance,

| — | in the case of direct cooperation, the transfer of personal data, the definition and types of data, the involvement of other authorities, the possibility for service providers served with an order for electronic evidence to object based on specific grounds, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the case of direct cooperation, the transfer of personal data, the definition and types of data, the involvement of other authorities, the possibility for service providers served with an order for electronic evidence to object based on specific grounds,

| — | the possibility to suspend the protocol in cases of breaches of its provisions and to review it. |
| --- | --- |

—

the possibility to suspend the protocol in cases of breaches of its provisions and to review it.

| 62. | Finally, the EDPS remains at the disposal of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to provide advice at further stages of this process. The comments in this Opinion are without prejudice to any additional comments that the EDPS could make as further issues may arise and would then be addressed once further information is available. He expects to be consulted later on the provisions of the draft protocol before its finalisation. |
| --- | --- |

62.

Brussels, 2 April 2019.

Giovanni BUTTARELLI

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters, COM(2018) 225 final.

1

(2)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings, COM(2018) 226 final.

2

(3)  The Council adopted its general approach on the proposed Regulation on 7 December 2018, available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/12/07/regulation-on-cross-border-access-to-e-evidence-council-agrees-its-position/#. The Council adopted its general approach on the proposed Directive on 8 March 2018, available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/08/e-evidence-package-council-agrees-its-position-on-rules-to-appoint-legal-representatives-for-the-gathering-of-evidence/.

3

(4)  Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations in view of an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, COM(2019) 70 final.

4

(5)  Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the participation in negotiations on a second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No 185), COM(2019) 71 final.

5

(6)  EDPS Opinion 2/2019 on the negotiating mandate of an EU-US agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence.

6

(7)  Convention on enhanced international cooperation on cybercrime and electronic evidence, Budapest, 23 November 2001, CETS No 185.

7

---

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/17

---

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the negotiating mandate of an EU-US agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence

[The full text of this Opinion can be found in EN, FR and DE on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu]

(2019/C 186/06)

On 5 February 2019, the European Commission issued a Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations to conclude an international agreement with the United States of America (US) on cross-border access to electronic evidence. The Annex to the Recommendation sets out the Council’s directives to negotiate the agreement. The objective of the proposed agreement would be to address, through common rules, the legal issue of access to content and non-content data held by service providers in the EU and the US.

The EDPS welcomes and supports the objective of the Commission to conclude an agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence with the US, thus ensuring a high level of protection for personal data in transfers between the EU and the US for law enforcement purposes, and appreciates the commitment to introduce sufficient safeguards. As the EDPS has long argued, the EU needs sustainable arrangements for sharing personal data with third countries for law enforcement purposes, which are fully compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Even when investigating domestic cases, law enforcement authorities increasingly find themselves in ‘cross-border situations’ simply because a foreign service provider was used and the information is stored electronically in a third country. In practice, this often concerns service providers headquartered in the US due to their dominance on global markets. The growing volume of requests for electronic evidence and the volatility of digital information put a strain on existing models of cooperation, such as MLATs. The EDPS understands that authorities face a race against time to obtain data for their investigations and supports efforts to devise new models of cooperation, including in the context of cooperation with third countries.

This Opinion aims to provide constructive and objective advice as the Council has to deliver its directives before the start of this delicate task. It builds on the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in recent years, which has affirmed data protection principles including fairness, accuracy and relevance of information, independent oversight and individual rights of individuals. These principles are as relevant for public bodies as they are for private companies and become all the more important considering the sensitivity of the data required for criminal investigations.

Against this background, the EDPS wishes to make the following observations:

| — | he welcomes that the Recommendation already includes important data protection safeguards, including the need to make the Umbrella Agreement applicable by reference, and supports the need for certain additional safeguards as proposed by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

he welcomes that the Recommendation already includes important data protection safeguards, including the need to make the Umbrella Agreement applicable by reference, and supports the need for certain additional safeguards as proposed by the Commission;

| — | given specific risks that arise in the context of direct cooperation between service providers and judicial authorities, he proposes to involve a judicial authority in the other party to the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

given specific risks that arise in the context of direct cooperation between service providers and judicial authorities, he proposes to involve a judicial authority in the other party to the agreement;

| — | he recommends adding Article 16 TFEU as a substantive legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

—

he recommends adding Article 16 TFEU as a substantive legal basis.

Additionally, the Opinion offers further recommendations for possible improvements and clarifications of the negotiating directives. The EDPS remains at the disposal of the institutions for further advice during the negotiations and before the finalisation of the future EU-US agreement.

1.   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

| 1. | On 17 April 2018, the Commission issued a package of two legislative proposals: a Proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (1) (hereinafter ‘the e-evidence Proposal’), and a Proposal for a Directive laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings (2). While work is ongoing at the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union (the Council) has reached a general approach on those two proposals (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | On 5 February 2019, the Commission adopted two recommendations for Council Decisions: a Recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations in view of an international agreement between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (US) on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters (4) (hereinafter ‘the Recommendation’), and a Recommendation to authorise the participation of the Commission on behalf of the EU in negotiations on a second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No 185) (5). The Annex to the Recommendation (hereinafter ‘the Annex’) is of utmost importance since it lays down the recommended Council’s directives to the Commission to negotiate the agreement on behalf of the EU. The latter recommendation is the subject of a separate EDPS Opinion (6). However, the EDPS considers that both negotiations with the US and at the Council of Europe are closely linked. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The Recommendation was adopted on the basis of the procedure laid down in Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for agreements concluded between the EU and third countries. With this Recommendation, the Commission seeks to obtain authorisation from the Council to be appointed as the negotiator on behalf of the EU and to start the negotiations with the US, along the negotiating directives annexed to the Recommendation. Once the negotiations are completed, in order for the agreement to be concluded, the European Parliament will have to give its consent to the text of the agreement negotiated, after which, the Council will have to adopt a decision concluding the agreement. The EDPS expects to be consulted on the text of the draft agreement in due course in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | The EDPS welcomes that he has been consulted following the adoption of the Recommendation by the European Commission, as well as by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament. The EDPS also welcomes the reference to his Opinion in Recital 4 of the Recommendation. He wishes to underline that the present Opinion is without prejudice to any additional comments that the EDPS could make on the basis of further available information at a later stage. |
| --- | --- |

4.

5.   CONCLUSIONS

| 66. | The EDPS understands the need for law enforcement authorities to secure and obtain electronic evidence quickly and effectively. He supports the efforts to identify innovative approaches to obtain cross-border access to electronic evidence. Therefore, this Opinion aims to provide constructive and objective advice to the EU institutions as the Commission seeks to obtain authorisation from the Council to negotiate with the US. |
| --- | --- |

66.

| 67. | The EDPS agrees with the Commission’s statement that the envisaged agreement should be conditional on strong protection mechanisms for fundamental rights. Several data protection principles and safeguards are already envisaged in the negotiating directives. He first recommends to include Article 16 TFEU as one of the substantive legal basis in the preamble of the Council Decision. He welcomes that the Umbrella Agreement, which he actively supported, should apply by reference to the future agreement. In his Opinion 1/2016 on the Umbrella Agreement, the EDPS recommended essential improvements and the reinforcement of several safeguards; he recommends to include those safeguards in the negotiating directives. |
| --- | --- |

67.

| 68. | Given the impact of the envisaged agreement on fundamental rights, the EDPS also considers that further safeguards than those already envisaged should be included to ensure that the final agreement meets the proportionality condition. He notably recommends the involvement of judicial authorities designated by the other Party to the agreement as early as possible in the process of gathering electronic evidence so that these authorities would have the possibility to review compliance of the orders with fundamental rights and raise grounds for refusal. |
| --- | --- |

68.

| 69. | In addition to these general recommendations, the recommendations and comments of the EDPS in the present Opinion relate to the following specific aspects of the envisaged agreements to be negotiated with the US in the negotiating directives:






  — | the mandatory nature of the agreement; |
| --- | --- | --- |

69.

—

the mandatory nature of the agreement;

| — | the onward transfers by US competent authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

the onward transfers by US competent authorities;

| — | the rights of data subjects in the US, in particular the right to information and the right of access; |
| --- | --- |

—

the rights of data subjects in the US, in particular the right to information and the right of access;

| — | the control by and independent authority in the US; |
| --- | --- |

—

the control by and independent authority in the US;

| — | the judicial redress and administrative redress in the US; |
| --- | --- |

—

the judicial redress and administrative redress in the US;

| — | the categories of data subjects concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

the categories of data subjects concerned;

| — | the definition and types of data covered by the envisaged agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

the definition and types of data covered by the envisaged agreement;

| — | the criminal offences covered by the envisaged agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

the criminal offences covered by the envisaged agreement;

| — | the specific safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of security of the data transferred; |
| --- | --- |

—

the specific safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of security of the data transferred;

| — | the type of authorities that can issue orders for electronic evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

the type of authorities that can issue orders for electronic evidence;

| — | the possibility for service providers served with an order for electronic evidence to object based on specific grounds. |
| --- | --- |

—

the possibility for service providers served with an order for electronic evidence to object based on specific grounds.

| 70. | Finally, the EDPS remains at the disposal of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to provide advice at further stages of this process. The comments in this Opinion are without prejudice to any additional comments that the EDPS could make as further issues may arise and would then be addressed once further information is available. He expects to be consulted on the text of the draft agreement before its finalisation. |
| --- | --- |

70.

Brussels, 2 April 2019.

Giovanni BUTTARELLI

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters, COM(2018) 225 final.

1

(2)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings, COM(2018) 226 final.

2

(3)  The Council adopted its general approach on the proposed Regulation on 7 December 2018, available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/12/07/regulation-on-cross-border-access-to-e-evidence-council-agrees-its-position/#. The Council adopted its general approach on the proposed Directive on 8 March 2018, available at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/03/08/e-evidence-package-council-agrees-its-position-on-rules-to-appoint-legal-representatives-for-the-gathering-of-evidence/

3

(4)  Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations in view of an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters, COM(2019) 70 final.

4

(5)  Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the participation in negotiations on a second Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (CETS No 185), COM(2019) 71 final; Convention on enhanced international cooperation on cybercrime and electronic evidence, Budapest, 23 November 2001, CETS No 185.

5

(6)  EDPS Opinion 3/2019 regarding the participation in the negotiations in view of a Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Cybercrime Convention.

6

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/20

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9353 — Advent International Corporation/Evonik Methacrylates Business Division)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 186/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Advent International Corporation (‘Advent’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Advent International Corporation (‘Advent’, USA),

| — | Methacrylates Business Division of Evonik Industries AG (‘Evonik’, Germany) (‘the Target’). |
| --- | --- |

—

Methacrylates Business Division of Evonik Industries AG (‘Evonik’, Germany) (‘the Target’).

Advent acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of Evonik.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.

2.

| — | Advent is a private equity investor that advises and manages funds investing globally. Advent has an equity stake in and controls (among others) portfolio company Allnex, which is active in the manufacture and supply of coating resins worldwide, |
| --- | --- |

—

Advent is a private equity investor that advises and manages funds investing globally. Advent has an equity stake in and controls (among others) portfolio company Allnex, which is active in the manufacture and supply of coating resins worldwide,

| — | the Target is a collection of assets in Germany, China and the United States dedicated to the manufacture and worldwide supply of methyl methacrylate and base monomers, polymethyl methacrylate molding compounds, acrylic products, methacrylate resins and cyanides. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Target is a collection of assets in Germany, China and the United States dedicated to the manufacture and worldwide supply of methyl methacrylate and base monomers, polymethyl methacrylate molding compounds, acrylic products, methacrylate resins and cyanides.

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.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9353 — Advent International Corporation/Evonik Methacrylates Business Division

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal 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’).

1

---