# Official Journal C 65/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 65 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6425 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 65

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6425 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 65/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10067 — ElringKlinger/Plastic Omnium New Energies/EKPO Fuel) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 65/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10117 — A.P. Moller/APMH Invest/Faerch Group) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2021/C 65/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10115 — PAI Partners/Apleona Group) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 65/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10067 — ElringKlinger/Plastic Omnium New Energies/EKPO Fuel) (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 65/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10117 — A.P. Moller/APMH Invest/Faerch Group) (
  1
  )

1

2

2021/C 65/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10115 — PAI Partners/Apleona Group) (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK |
| 2021/C 65/04 | Opinion of the European Central Bank of 25 January 2021 on a proposal for a regulation on cross-border payments in the Union (CON/2021/3) | 4 |

III   Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

2021/C 65/04

Opinion of the European Central Bank of 25 January 2021 on a proposal for a regulation on cross-border payments in the Union (CON/2021/3)

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 65/05 | Euro exchange rates — 24 February 2021 | 6 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | Standing Committee of the EFTA States |
| 2021/C 65/06 | Recommendation by the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2020/SC on the notification by Norway from 5 November 2020 of the use of a Systemic Risk Buffer according to Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019 | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 65/05

Euro exchange rates — 24 February 2021

6

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

Standing Committee of the EFTA States

2021/C 65/06

Recommendation by the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2020/SC on the notification by Norway from 5 November 2020 of the use of a Systemic Risk Buffer according to Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 65/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures) (
  1
  ) | 14 |
| 2021/C 65/08 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10087 — PROXIMUS/NEXUS INFRASTRUCTURE/JV) (
  1
  ) | 16 |
| 2021/C 65/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10161 — The Goldman Sachs Group/Warburg Pincus/Good Host Spaces) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| 2021/C 65/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10151 - LINDE/SIPCHEM/JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 19 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 65/11 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 20 |
| 2021/C 65/12 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 28 |
| 2021/C 65/13 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 36 |
| 2021/C 65/14 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 42 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 65/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures) (
  1
  )

1

14

2021/C 65/08

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10087 — PROXIMUS/NEXUS INFRASTRUCTURE/JV) (
  1
  )

1

16

2021/C 65/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10161 — The Goldman Sachs Group/Warburg Pincus/Good Host Spaces) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

17

2021/C 65/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10151 - LINDE/SIPCHEM/JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

19

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2021/C 65/11

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

20

2021/C 65/12

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

28

2021/C 65/13

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

36

2021/C 65/14

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

42

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10067 — ElringKlinger/Plastic Omnium New Energies/EKPO Fuel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/01)

On 18 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10067. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10067. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10117 — A.P. Moller/APMH Invest/Faerch Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/02)

On 5 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10117. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10117. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10115 — PAI Partners/Apleona Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/03)

On 19 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10115. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10115. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

III Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/4

---

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 25 January 2021

on a proposal for a regulation on cross-border payments in the Union

(CON/2021/3)

(2021/C 65/04)

Introduction and legal basis

On 15 October 2020 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council of the European Union for an opinion on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border payments in the Union (codification) (1) (hereinafter the ‘proposed regulation’).

The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with the fourth indent of Article 127(2) TFEU and the fourth indent of Article 3.1 of Protocol (No 4) on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, as the proposed regulation contains provisions concerning the smooth operation of payment systems. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

General observations

The proposed regulation aims to codify Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), as last amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/518 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). While the ECB generally welcomes the codification exercise, it notes, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum of the proposed regulation, that instruments affected by codification do not contain substantive changes, but only formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. The ECB also adopted an opinion (4) on the proposal for Regulation (EU) 2019/518 (5). However, certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/518 were introduced in the context of the Union legislative procedure after the submission of the Commission proposal to the ECB and were therefore not part of the Council’s consultation request to the ECB. Therefore, in view of the lack of opportunity to opine previously, and given that the proposed regulation will be adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, the ECB takes this opportunity to opine on one provision of the proposed regulation that was introduced by Regulation (EU) 2019/518.

1.   Specific observations

1.1   Reference to the euro foreign exchange reference rates issued by the ECB

Article 4(1) of the proposed regulation, which aims to supplement the transparency and information requirements set out in Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) (hereinafter the ‘Payment Services Directive’) with regard to currency conversion services (7), requires payment service providers and parties providing currency conversion services at an automated teller machine or at the point of sale to express the total currency conversion charges as a percentage mark-up over the latest available euro foreign exchange reference rates issued by the ECB.

Since 1998 the ECB has published euro foreign exchange reference rates (ECBRRs) on the basis of a framework approved by the ECB Governing Council in 1998 and subsequently amended in 2015 (8) (hereinafter the ‘ECBRR Framework’). The ECBRRs are provided as a public good for individual citizens and institutions (9) and are used by a wide range of institutions. The aim of the ECBRR Framework is to preserve the integrity of the ECBRRs by: (i) discouraging trading on the ECBRR; and (ii) limiting their use to reference purposes. Using the ECBRR for transaction purposes is strongly discouraged and the ECBRRs are published for information purposes only (10). In this regard the ECBRR Framework aims to reinforce the difference between the ECBRR and exchange rate benchmarks which are intended for transaction purposes.

The reference to the ECBRRs in the proposed regulation could, contrary to the objectives of the ECBRRs, create incentives for some market participants to trade at the ECBRRs. Therefore, the ECB recommends that the reference in Article 4 of the proposed regulation to the ECBRRs is removed and replaced by an appropriate reference to a foreign exchange benchmark rate which falls within the scope of the Union benchmark regulation (11), and which may be used in the context of the currency conversion charges. The accuracy and integrity of such benchmarks, which is ensured by the regime for benchmark administrators introduced by that regulation, protects the interests of customers of payment service providers and parties providing currency conversion services.

Where the ECB recommends that the proposed regulation is amended, a specific drafting proposal is set out in a separate technical working document accompanied by an explanatory text to this effect. The technical working document is available in English on EUR-Lex.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 25 January 2021.

The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE

---

(1)  COM(2020) 323 final.

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11).

2

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2019/518 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 as regards certain charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges (OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 36).

3

(4)  See Opinion of the European Central Bank CON/2018/38 of 31 August 2018 on a proposal for a regulation on certain charges on cross-border payments in the version charges (OJ C 382, 23.10.2018, p. 7). All ECB Opinions are published on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu

4

(5)  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 as regards certain charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges, COM(2018) 163 final.

5

(6)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

6

(7)  See Recital 8 of the proposed regulation.

7

(8)  See the ECB’s Framework for the euro foreign exchange reference rates available on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu

8

(9)  See the ECB’s press release of 7 December 2015 on the ECB’s introduction of changes to euro foreign exchange reference rates.

9

(10)  The ECBRR Framework expressly provides that ‘the term “reference rate” is taken to mean an exchange rate that is not intended to be used in any market transactions, whether directly or indirectly (as an underlying benchmark). The rates are intended for information purposes only.’

10

(11)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts or to measure the performance of investment funds and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2014/17/EU and Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (OJ L 171, 29.6.2016, p. 1).

11

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 February 2021

(2021/C 65/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2146 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4364 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0893 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1029 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 154,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2483 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,978 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 359,74 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5178 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8749 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 8,7071 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5347 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5266 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4189 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6451 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6049 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 346,15 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5723 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8362 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5805 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 070,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9100 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,072 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 89,4919 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,487 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5642 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,7700 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,8760 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2146

JPY

Japanese yen

128,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4364

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86030

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0893

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1029

ISK

Iceland króna

154,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2483

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,978

HUF

Hungarian forint

359,74

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5178

RON

Romanian leu

4,8749

TRY

Turkish lira

8,7071

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5347

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5266

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4189

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6451

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6049

KRW

South Korean won

1 346,15

ZAR

South African rand

17,5723

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8362

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5805

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 070,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9100

PHP

Philippine peso

59,072

RUB

Russian rouble

89,4919

THB

Thai baht

36,487

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5642

MXN

Mexican peso

24,7700

INR

Indian rupee

87,8760

---

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

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

Standing Committee of the EFTA States

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/7

---

Recommendation by the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2020/SC on the notification by Norway from 5 November 2020 of the use of a Systemic Risk Buffer according to Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019

(2021/C 65/06)

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 5 November 2020, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance ('Finansdepartmentet'), hereinafter 'the Ministry', which is the national designated authority in charge of the application of a systemic risk buffer, hereinafter 'SyRB', as referred to in Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU, which was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019, notified the EFTA Standing Committee of its intention to raise the current SyRB on domestic exposures, hereinafter 'the notification'. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 November 2020, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance ('Finansdepartmentet'), hereinafter 'the Ministry', which is the national designated authority in charge of the application of a systemic risk buffer, hereinafter 'SyRB', as referred to in Article 133 of Directive 2013/36/EU, which was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019, notified the EFTA Standing Committee of its intention to raise the current SyRB on domestic exposures, hereinafter 'the notification'.

| (2) | Currently, credit institutions in Norway are subject to a SyRB of 3 % on all exposures, except for two systemically important institutions which are subject to a SyRB of 5 % on all exposures. The notified measure is a SyRB of 4,5 % and will apply to domestic exposures of all credit institutions authorised in Norway, including five subsidiaries of parents established in other Union’s Member States. The buffer is intended to target systemic risks in Norway and promote domestic financial stability by safeguarding resilience in the financial system, along with ensuring continued adequate capital in banks in light of Norway’s high-level of long-term systemic risk. Separately, the Ministry also notified its intention to set a buffer for two credit institutions categorised as Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SIIs), pursuant to Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU. This will be set at a rate of 2 % for one institution and 1 % for the other. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Currently, credit institutions in Norway are subject to a SyRB of 3 % on all exposures, except for two systemically important institutions which are subject to a SyRB of 5 % on all exposures. The notified measure is a SyRB of 4,5 % and will apply to domestic exposures of all credit institutions authorised in Norway, including five subsidiaries of parents established in other Union’s Member States. The buffer is intended to target systemic risks in Norway and promote domestic financial stability by safeguarding resilience in the financial system, along with ensuring continued adequate capital in banks in light of Norway’s high-level of long-term systemic risk. Separately, the Ministry also notified its intention to set a buffer for two credit institutions categorised as Other Systemically Important Institutions (O-SIIs), pursuant to Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU. This will be set at a rate of 2 % for one institution and 1 % for the other.

| (3) | The notified SyRB would apply from 31 December 2020 for all credit institutions, except credit institutions which do not use the 'Advanced IRB Approach', as they would have a transitional period where the current buffer remains 3 % on all exposures until 31 December 2022. The measure will be re-evaluated by the Ministry every second year. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The notified SyRB would apply from 31 December 2020 for all credit institutions, except credit institutions which do not use the 'Advanced IRB Approach', as they would have a transitional period where the current buffer remains 3 % on all exposures until 31 December 2022. The measure will be re-evaluated by the Ministry every second year.

| (4) | As the notified measure also concerns subsidiaries of parent undertakings established in other EEA States, the procedure described in subparagraph 3 of Article 133(14) of CRD IV, as adapted by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019, applies. The Ministry, as the designated authority in charge of the application of a SyRB, shall therefore notify its intention to the relevant authorities of the other EEA States along with the Standing Committee of the EFTA States and the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). The Standing Committee and the ESRB shall, within one month of the notification, issue a recommendation on the measures taken. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

As the notified measure also concerns subsidiaries of parent undertakings established in other EEA States, the procedure described in subparagraph 3 of Article 133(14) of CRD IV, as adapted by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2019, applies. The Ministry, as the designated authority in charge of the application of a SyRB, shall therefore notify its intention to the relevant authorities of the other EEA States along with the Standing Committee of the EFTA States and the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). The Standing Committee and the ESRB shall, within one month of the notification, issue a recommendation on the measures taken.

| (5) | The SyRB is intended to mitigate long-term structural systemic risks in the Norwegian financial system. These risks stem mainly from propagation and amplification of shocks within the system itself, the Norwegian banking sector and the real economy. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The SyRB is intended to mitigate long-term structural systemic risks in the Norwegian financial system. These risks stem mainly from propagation and amplification of shocks within the system itself, the Norwegian banking sector and the real economy.

| (6) | In its reasoning for the notification, the Ministry points out that long-term structural systemic risks are comparatively high in Norway. Contributing to this high level of systemic risks, institutions in Norway have similar funding structures, rely significantly on wholesale funding (48 % of their funding, including foreign wholesale funding), making them vulnerable to market turbulence. Additionally, they are interconnected, including through cross-holdings of covered bonds, and have similar and concentrated exposures towards real estate markets. For instance, about 60 % of total lending of Norwegian credit institutions consists of lending for (residential and commercial) real estate. Under these circumstances, disruptions in the economy are amplified as they can severely affect multiple credit institutions both at the same time and in the same manner. This potential for amplification of risks is further substantiated by Norwegian banks’ similarity in choice of business models, and interconnectivity through cross-holdings of covered bonds. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In its reasoning for the notification, the Ministry points out that long-term structural systemic risks are comparatively high in Norway. Contributing to this high level of systemic risks, institutions in Norway have similar funding structures, rely significantly on wholesale funding (48 % of their funding, including foreign wholesale funding), making them vulnerable to market turbulence. Additionally, they are interconnected, including through cross-holdings of covered bonds, and have similar and concentrated exposures towards real estate markets. For instance, about 60 % of total lending of Norwegian credit institutions consists of lending for (residential and commercial) real estate. Under these circumstances, disruptions in the economy are amplified as they can severely affect multiple credit institutions both at the same time and in the same manner. This potential for amplification of risks is further substantiated by Norwegian banks’ similarity in choice of business models, and interconnectivity through cross-holdings of covered bonds.

| (7) | The Ministry has pointed out that the high real estate prices, both residential and commercial, along with high household debts in Norway are some of the key vulnerabilities in the Norwegian financial system that stem from the real economy. In that regard it should be noted that, in a historic context, household indebtedness in Norway, relative to disposable income, has been comparatively high which again results in systemic risk for the banking sector. The risk involved in Norwegian households using much of their income to service debt is further intensified by the fact that most Norwegian mortgages have floating interest rates, making even small disruptions capable of leading to severely impaired debt-servicing. Historically, exposures to commercial real estate (CRE) risks in previous crises have not only caused some of the Norwegian banking system’s biggest losses but also contributed to solvency problems in the banking sector. The Standing Committee further notes that in June 2019, the ESRB issued a warning to Norwegian authorities where vulnerabilities in the Norwegian residential real estate (RRE) sector were identified as a source of systemic risk to financial stability and that those vulnerabilities needed to be addressed. (1) |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Ministry has pointed out that the high real estate prices, both residential and commercial, along with high household debts in Norway are some of the key vulnerabilities in the Norwegian financial system that stem from the real economy. In that regard it should be noted that, in a historic context, household indebtedness in Norway, relative to disposable income, has been comparatively high which again results in systemic risk for the banking sector. The risk involved in Norwegian households using much of their income to service debt is further intensified by the fact that most Norwegian mortgages have floating interest rates, making even small disruptions capable of leading to severely impaired debt-servicing. Historically, exposures to commercial real estate (CRE) risks in previous crises have not only caused some of the Norwegian banking system’s biggest losses but also contributed to solvency problems in the banking sector. The Standing Committee further notes that in June 2019, the ESRB issued a warning to Norwegian authorities where vulnerabilities in the Norwegian residential real estate (RRE) sector were identified as a source of systemic risk to financial stability and that those vulnerabilities needed to be addressed. (1)

| (8) | The Ministry has pointed out that the credit institutions also operate in the Norwegian economy which is characterised by a relatively uniform corporate sector which is highly dependent on the petroleum sector. Since the petroleum sector constitutes 17 % of GDP and 40 % of total exports from Norway the possibility of lowered petroleum prices or reduced global demand are a significant risk to the economy as a whole. This risk has been mitigated to some extent in recent years by investing profits from the petroleum sector in securities in international financial markets. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing transition to a greener economy may increase both short-term and long-term pressure on this systemically important sector. Such pressure could potentially cause a ripple effect to other sectors to which credit institutions are exposed. The Standing Committee notes in this respect that Norges Bank in its Financial Stability Report of 2020 states that '[i]n the Norwegian oil sector, oil service companies in particular pose a risk to banks, and banks have incurred substantial losses on lending to this industry over the past five years'. (2) |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Ministry has pointed out that the credit institutions also operate in the Norwegian economy which is characterised by a relatively uniform corporate sector which is highly dependent on the petroleum sector. Since the petroleum sector constitutes 17 % of GDP and 40 % of total exports from Norway the possibility of lowered petroleum prices or reduced global demand are a significant risk to the economy as a whole. This risk has been mitigated to some extent in recent years by investing profits from the petroleum sector in securities in international financial markets. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing transition to a greener economy may increase both short-term and long-term pressure on this systemically important sector. Such pressure could potentially cause a ripple effect to other sectors to which credit institutions are exposed. The Standing Committee notes in this respect that Norges Bank in its Financial Stability Report of 2020 states that '[i]n the Norwegian oil sector, oil service companies in particular pose a risk to banks, and banks have incurred substantial losses on lending to this industry over the past five years'. (2)

| (9) | According to the Ministry, the size, importance and concentration of the Norwegian banking sector amplify the systemic risks to the Norwegian economy. First, the banking sector’s size compared to GDP is considerable, standing at approximately 225 % of 2019’s GDP. Second, the banking sector is highly important for the financing of the economy, as it serves more than 80 % of gross domestic lending to the non-financial sector. Third, the banking sector is concentrated with the five largest banks accounting for 56 % of total domestic lending. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

According to the Ministry, the size, importance and concentration of the Norwegian banking sector amplify the systemic risks to the Norwegian economy. First, the banking sector’s size compared to GDP is considerable, standing at approximately 225 % of 2019’s GDP. Second, the banking sector is highly important for the financing of the economy, as it serves more than 80 % of gross domestic lending to the non-financial sector. Third, the banking sector is concentrated with the five largest banks accounting for 56 % of total domestic lending.

| (10) | In its assessment of the Ministry’s reasoning, the Standing Committee has taken note of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Financial System Stability Assessment for Norway of 2020. (3) In line with the Ministry’s assessment of the main issues pertaining to a high level of systemic risk, the IMF report recognizes that Norwegian banks’ high exposures to domestic real estate, both residential and commercial, along with wholesale funding, are among the key underlying vulnerabilities. The IMF further notes that the banking sector’s interconnectedness could result in significant shock amplification and that a deterioration in borrowers’ debt servicing capacity could arise from a sharp slowdown in economic growth. As regards dependency on the petroleum market, the IMF notes that the impact of an abrupt transition to a low-carbon economy could be high given Norway’s reliance on the production and export of oil. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In its assessment of the Ministry’s reasoning, the Standing Committee has taken note of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Financial System Stability Assessment for Norway of 2020. (3) In line with the Ministry’s assessment of the main issues pertaining to a high level of systemic risk, the IMF report recognizes that Norwegian banks’ high exposures to domestic real estate, both residential and commercial, along with wholesale funding, are among the key underlying vulnerabilities. The IMF further notes that the banking sector’s interconnectedness could result in significant shock amplification and that a deterioration in borrowers’ debt servicing capacity could arise from a sharp slowdown in economic growth. As regards dependency on the petroleum market, the IMF notes that the impact of an abrupt transition to a low-carbon economy could be high given Norway’s reliance on the production and export of oil.

| (11) | In light of how the Norwegian banking sector is structured and the risks to which it is exposed, as described above, the Ministry considers it necessary that credit institutions overall are capable of absorbing losses that may occur as a result of severe shocks and disruptions in both the financial system and the real economy. It concludes that a SyRB of 4,5 % for exposures in Norway is the most suitable measure to target substantial non-cyclical systemic risks present in Norway. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

In light of how the Norwegian banking sector is structured and the risks to which it is exposed, as described above, the Ministry considers it necessary that credit institutions overall are capable of absorbing losses that may occur as a result of severe shocks and disruptions in both the financial system and the real economy. It concludes that a SyRB of 4,5 % for exposures in Norway is the most suitable measure to target substantial non-cyclical systemic risks present in Norway.

| (12) | In assessing the Ministry’s conclusion, the Standing Committee notes that stress tests conducted by the Norwegian authorities have shown that in situations that have low probability but are not unrealistic, many institutions would have a CET1 capital shortfall relative to overall capital and buffer requirements. The latest stress tests, performed by Norges Bank and Finanstilsynet (FSA) in November 2019 and June 2020 respectively, are based on a deep international recession with a strong increase in risk premia, causing serious consequences for the Norwegian economy. The FSA’s stress test shows that in the course of the stress period the CET1 capital ratio of practically all of the 20 largest banking groups would fall below the overall CET1 requirement, including buffer requirements and the Pillar 2 requirement. Additionally, 48 out of 84 of the other Norwegian credit institutions would not meet the overall capital requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In assessing the Ministry’s conclusion, the Standing Committee notes that stress tests conducted by the Norwegian authorities have shown that in situations that have low probability but are not unrealistic, many institutions would have a CET1 capital shortfall relative to overall capital and buffer requirements. The latest stress tests, performed by Norges Bank and Finanstilsynet (FSA) in November 2019 and June 2020 respectively, are based on a deep international recession with a strong increase in risk premia, causing serious consequences for the Norwegian economy. The FSA’s stress test shows that in the course of the stress period the CET1 capital ratio of practically all of the 20 largest banking groups would fall below the overall CET1 requirement, including buffer requirements and the Pillar 2 requirement. Additionally, 48 out of 84 of the other Norwegian credit institutions would not meet the overall capital requirements.

| (13) | The Standing Committee further notes that the Ministry expects that, in the absence of the notified measure, future stress tests would reveal greater reductions in capital adequacy, forcing institutions to draw on a larger share of their combined buffer in order to maintain the lending activity. This would weaken the banking system’s resilience towards the identified long-term systemic risks. If the SyRB requirement is set at 4,5 % for domestic exposures, this would maintain adequate capitalisation based on the abovementioned risks, without leading to material increases in effective requirements for the larger institutions compared to the pre-2020 level. In this regard, the Ministry further notes that there are several aspects that are not captured by the stress test results, which may contribute to the credit institutions’ potential losses being underestimated. For instance, it is assumed that credit institutions continue to have access to wholesale funding during periods of stress. Moreover, the Ministry notes that accumulated losses in the stress tests are lower than credit institutions’ actual losses during the Norwegian banking crisis in 1988-1992. The Ministry also argues that the overall requirements implied by a systemic risk buffer of 4,5 % for domestic exposures is also well within the range of estimates of socially optimal requirements. (4) |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Standing Committee further notes that the Ministry expects that, in the absence of the notified measure, future stress tests would reveal greater reductions in capital adequacy, forcing institutions to draw on a larger share of their combined buffer in order to maintain the lending activity. This would weaken the banking system’s resilience towards the identified long-term systemic risks. If the SyRB requirement is set at 4,5 % for domestic exposures, this would maintain adequate capitalisation based on the abovementioned risks, without leading to material increases in effective requirements for the larger institutions compared to the pre-2020 level. In this regard, the Ministry further notes that there are several aspects that are not captured by the stress test results, which may contribute to the credit institutions’ potential losses being underestimated. For instance, it is assumed that credit institutions continue to have access to wholesale funding during periods of stress. Moreover, the Ministry notes that accumulated losses in the stress tests are lower than credit institutions’ actual losses during the Norwegian banking crisis in 1988-1992. The Ministry also argues that the overall requirements implied by a systemic risk buffer of 4,5 % for domestic exposures is also well within the range of estimates of socially optimal requirements. (4)

| (14) | Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the Ministry, including the results of stress tests performed by the Norwegian authorities, as well as historical data on past severe crises in Norway, the Standing Committee is of the view that a SyRB level of 4,5 % for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks threatening the stability of the Norwegian financial system. The Standing Committee further believes that under the current conditions a capital level that is achieved with a SyRB of 4,5 % is necessary to maintain the banking systems’ resilience towards the identified systemic risks. The Standing Committee notes in this respect that the Executive Board of the IMF concluded from its Financial System Stability Assessment of Norway in August 2020 that ‘[t]he authorities should guard against a weakening of capital requirements’. (5) |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the Ministry, including the results of stress tests performed by the Norwegian authorities, as well as historical data on past severe crises in Norway, the Standing Committee is of the view that a SyRB level of 4,5 % for domestic exposures can be considered appropriate for addressing the identified systemic risks threatening the stability of the Norwegian financial system. The Standing Committee further believes that under the current conditions a capital level that is achieved with a SyRB of 4,5 % is necessary to maintain the banking systems’ resilience towards the identified systemic risks. The Standing Committee notes in this respect that the Executive Board of the IMF concluded from its Financial System Stability Assessment of Norway in August 2020 that ‘[t]he authorities should guard against a weakening of capital requirements’. (5)

| (15) | In assessing the effectiveness and proportionality of the measure, the Standing Committee notes the Ministry’s view that a SyRB requirement of 4,5 % for exposures in Norway will effectively contribute to maintain Norwegian institution’s resilience and capacity to absorb losses at the level deemed necessary in light of the intensity of systemic risks. The CRR/CRD IV framework was recently incorporated into the EEA Agreement and in preparation for the Norwegian framework to align with the current framework, the Ministry has assessed the scope and calibration of the SyRB requirement, and concluded that the most effective way to mitigate the systemic risk will be to set the requirement at 4,5 % for domestic exposures only. Beyond improving the consistency between the objective and design of the measure, this represents an alignment with the provisions of the CRR/CRD IV framework that facilitate reciprocation for domestic buffer rates. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In assessing the effectiveness and proportionality of the measure, the Standing Committee notes the Ministry’s view that a SyRB requirement of 4,5 % for exposures in Norway will effectively contribute to maintain Norwegian institution’s resilience and capacity to absorb losses at the level deemed necessary in light of the intensity of systemic risks. The CRR/CRD IV framework was recently incorporated into the EEA Agreement and in preparation for the Norwegian framework to align with the current framework, the Ministry has assessed the scope and calibration of the SyRB requirement, and concluded that the most effective way to mitigate the systemic risk will be to set the requirement at 4,5 % for domestic exposures only. Beyond improving the consistency between the objective and design of the measure, this represents an alignment with the provisions of the CRR/CRD IV framework that facilitate reciprocation for domestic buffer rates.

| (16) | The Ministry believes that for the larger Norwegian banks, constituting more than half the domestic banking system, a systemic risk buffer rate of 4,5 % on domestic exposures is almost equivalent to the previous 3 % buffer rate applicable to all exposures in terms of real capital requirements. They consider it proportional not only to the potential losses stemming from the structural risks in the Norwegian financial system, but also the intensity of those risks and the risk tolerance implied by their previous buffer decisions. It is furthermore worth noting that the current buffer rate of 3 % on all exposures was calibrated when the Basel I floor applied and when there was no SME supporting factor. In the absence of the Basel I floor and with the SME supporting factor applying, the previous systemic risk buffer rate would, according to the Ministry, probably have been set at a higher rate in light of the level of systemic risk. As concluded by the Ministry, based on experience from previous crises and results from stress tests, the overall capital and buffer requirement has been proportional to the overall risks present in the financial system. Accordingly, the overall requirement should be maintained at approximately the pre-2020 level as the intensity of the systemic risks is similar to 2013, which would justify a SyRB rate set at 4,5 %. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Ministry believes that for the larger Norwegian banks, constituting more than half the domestic banking system, a systemic risk buffer rate of 4,5 % on domestic exposures is almost equivalent to the previous 3 % buffer rate applicable to all exposures in terms of real capital requirements. They consider it proportional not only to the potential losses stemming from the structural risks in the Norwegian financial system, but also the intensity of those risks and the risk tolerance implied by their previous buffer decisions. It is furthermore worth noting that the current buffer rate of 3 % on all exposures was calibrated when the Basel I floor applied and when there was no SME supporting factor. In the absence of the Basel I floor and with the SME supporting factor applying, the previous systemic risk buffer rate would, according to the Ministry, probably have been set at a higher rate in light of the level of systemic risk. As concluded by the Ministry, based on experience from previous crises and results from stress tests, the overall capital and buffer requirement has been proportional to the overall risks present in the financial system. Accordingly, the overall requirement should be maintained at approximately the pre-2020 level as the intensity of the systemic risks is similar to 2013, which would justify a SyRB rate set at 4,5 %.

| (17) | According to the Ministry, the COVID-19 pandemic has not led to any major changes in the structural features of the Norwegian financial system, and Norwegian credit institutions continued to satisfy capital and buffer requirements by an ample margin and were able to maintain lending to households and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, in March 2020, the Ministry has lowered the countercyclical capital buffer from 2,5 % to 1 % as a short-term response to the potential impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

According to the Ministry, the COVID-19 pandemic has not led to any major changes in the structural features of the Norwegian financial system, and Norwegian credit institutions continued to satisfy capital and buffer requirements by an ample margin and were able to maintain lending to households and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, in March 2020, the Ministry has lowered the countercyclical capital buffer from 2,5 % to 1 % as a short-term response to the potential impact from the COVID-19 pandemic.

| (18) | In light of the above, the Standing Committee is of the view that the measure in question is both effective and proportionate as it contributes to mitigating the identified long-term structural risks in the Norwegian banking sector. The Standing Committee notes that the clearest evidence for this conclusion is found in the stress test results of the Norwegian authorities, which suggest that the measures will be effective for promoting financial stability in Norway by maintaining the capital level of Norwegian credit institutions at the necessary level for the conservation of their current loss-absorption capacity. In support of this conclusion about the proportionality of the measure, the Standing Committee notes that this implies that in actual terms there will be no significant increase of capital requirements for Norwegian credit institutions. For several of the subsidiaries of parent undertakings established in other EEA Member States the capital requirements will increase by close to 1.5 percentage point, but the Standing Committee notes that according to the Ministry these credit institutions have capital levels in excess of the requirements implied by a SyRB rate of 4,5 % on Norwegian exposures. The Ministry acknowledges that some Norwegian credit institutions may need to increase their capital ratio somewhat to maintain a management buffer on top of the overall Pillar 1 and 2 requirements. Meanwhile, the transitional period until 31 December 2022 for banks not using the Advanced IRB approach, should ensure that the changes in the SyRB requirement do not result in undue increases in capital requirements for credit institutions that are not significantly impacted by the abolishment of the Basel I floor, and whose Pillar 2 requirements may have to be recalibrated once the higher SyRB applies to them after the transition period. This approach should mitigate distortions that the notified measure may cause and ensure that any adverse impacts on domestic banks and their lending capacity remain limited. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

In light of the above, the Standing Committee is of the view that the measure in question is both effective and proportionate as it contributes to mitigating the identified long-term structural risks in the Norwegian banking sector. The Standing Committee notes that the clearest evidence for this conclusion is found in the stress test results of the Norwegian authorities, which suggest that the measures will be effective for promoting financial stability in Norway by maintaining the capital level of Norwegian credit institutions at the necessary level for the conservation of their current loss-absorption capacity. In support of this conclusion about the proportionality of the measure, the Standing Committee notes that this implies that in actual terms there will be no significant increase of capital requirements for Norwegian credit institutions. For several of the subsidiaries of parent undertakings established in other EEA Member States the capital requirements will increase by close to 1.5 percentage point, but the Standing Committee notes that according to the Ministry these credit institutions have capital levels in excess of the requirements implied by a SyRB rate of 4,5 % on Norwegian exposures. The Ministry acknowledges that some Norwegian credit institutions may need to increase their capital ratio somewhat to maintain a management buffer on top of the overall Pillar 1 and 2 requirements. Meanwhile, the transitional period until 31 December 2022 for banks not using the Advanced IRB approach, should ensure that the changes in the SyRB requirement do not result in undue increases in capital requirements for credit institutions that are not significantly impacted by the abolishment of the Basel I floor, and whose Pillar 2 requirements may have to be recalibrated once the higher SyRB applies to them after the transition period. This approach should mitigate distortions that the notified measure may cause and ensure that any adverse impacts on domestic banks and their lending capacity remain limited.

| (19) | The Standing Committee has also considered the Ministry’s reasons for discarding other measures foreseen in Directive 2013/36/EU or in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (excluding Articles 458 and 459 of that Regulation), alone or in combination, as an appropriate way to address the identified macroprudential or systemic risk, taking into account the relative effectiveness of those measures. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Standing Committee has also considered the Ministry’s reasons for discarding other measures foreseen in Directive 2013/36/EU or in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (excluding Articles 458 and 459 of that Regulation), alone or in combination, as an appropriate way to address the identified macroprudential or systemic risk, taking into account the relative effectiveness of those measures.

| (20) | Article 124 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 allows competent authorities to set higher values for risk weights of real estate exposures of credit institutions that use the standardised approach, based on financial stability considerations, the loss experience of exposures secured by immovable property, and forward-looking immovable property markets developments. The Ministry considers the risk weight of 35 % for residential real estate exposures in Norway adequate for institutions using the Standardised Approach. For commercial real estate exposures, higher risk-weights have already been set, based on paragraph 2 of this Article, varying between 100 % and 150 %, depending on the counterparty’s rating. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Article 124 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 allows competent authorities to set higher values for risk weights of real estate exposures of credit institutions that use the standardised approach, based on financial stability considerations, the loss experience of exposures secured by immovable property, and forward-looking immovable property markets developments. The Ministry considers the risk weight of 35 % for residential real estate exposures in Norway adequate for institutions using the Standardised Approach. For commercial real estate exposures, higher risk-weights have already been set, based on paragraph 2 of this Article, varying between 100 % and 150 %, depending on the counterparty’s rating.

| (21) | Under Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, competent authorities may, where appropriate on the basis of financial stability considerations and forward-looking immovable property markets developments, set higher minimum values of exposure-weighted average Loss Given Default for exposures secured by immovable property in their territory. For retail exposures secured by residential property in Norway, a higher Loss Given Default floor of 20 % has been applied since 2014 to address uncertainty associated with internal credit risk models. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Under Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, competent authorities may, where appropriate on the basis of financial stability considerations and forward-looking immovable property markets developments, set higher minimum values of exposure-weighted average Loss Given Default for exposures secured by immovable property in their territory. For retail exposures secured by residential property in Norway, a higher Loss Given Default floor of 20 % has been applied since 2014 to address uncertainty associated with internal credit risk models.

| (22) | The Standing Committee notes that Articles 124 and 164 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 have already been used to some extent to address certain risks. It also notes that the notified measure intends to address broader long-term systemic risks than the specific property market developments that can be targeted under Articles 124 and 164 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. These systemic risks are the similar funding structures of credit institutions, their interconnectedness and their similar and concentrated exposures towards real estate markets and the Norwegian economy with a not very diversified corporate sector, while household debt levels are high. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Standing Committee notes that Articles 124 and 164 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 have already been used to some extent to address certain risks. It also notes that the notified measure intends to address broader long-term systemic risks than the specific property market developments that can be targeted under Articles 124 and 164 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. These systemic risks are the similar funding structures of credit institutions, their interconnectedness and their similar and concentrated exposures towards real estate markets and the Norwegian economy with a not very diversified corporate sector, while household debt levels are high.

| (23) | Where a competent authority determines that credit institutions with similar risk profiles are or might be exposed to similar risks or pose similar risks to the financial system, it currently may, under Article 103 of Directive 2013/36/EU, apply the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) to those institutions in a similar or identical manner. Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU provides a set of supervisory powers to the competent authority in the application of Article 103 of that Directive, including additional own fund requirements. The Ministry argues that institution-specific pillar 2 requirements pursuant to Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU should be tailored to each institution’s specific situation, and that such requirements may target certain elements of structural systemic risks, but only to an extent where the risks are not general features of the banking system. In support of this view, it considers that Directive 2019/878 clarifies that the institution-specific nature of Pillar 2 requirements should prevent their use as a tool to address systemic risks. The Standing Committee notes that Pillar 2 measures are indeed primarily meant to address institution-specific risks and are also less transparent than a systemic risk buffer. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Where a competent authority determines that credit institutions with similar risk profiles are or might be exposed to similar risks or pose similar risks to the financial system, it currently may, under Article 103 of Directive 2013/36/EU, apply the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) to those institutions in a similar or identical manner. Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU provides a set of supervisory powers to the competent authority in the application of Article 103 of that Directive, including additional own fund requirements. The Ministry argues that institution-specific pillar 2 requirements pursuant to Article 104 of Directive 2013/36/EU should be tailored to each institution’s specific situation, and that such requirements may target certain elements of structural systemic risks, but only to an extent where the risks are not general features of the banking system. In support of this view, it considers that Directive 2019/878 clarifies that the institution-specific nature of Pillar 2 requirements should prevent their use as a tool to address systemic risks. The Standing Committee notes that Pillar 2 measures are indeed primarily meant to address institution-specific risks and are also less transparent than a systemic risk buffer.

| (24) | Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU mandates designated authorities to identify other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) and set or reset an O-SII buffer for those institutions. The Ministry has separately notified the intention to set O-SII buffers for two systemically important institutions. It considers these buffers complementary, as the O-SII buffers address part of the risk of a concentration of systemically important institutions, while the systemic risk buffer addresses other long-term non-cyclical systemic risks. According to the Minstry, a number of other credit institutions are big enough to potentially amplify systemic risks in the Norwegian banking sector, while remaining too small to be identified, by the Ministry, as domestic systemically important on an individual basis. The Standing Committee considers that Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU is not meant to address all types of long term non-cyclical systemic or macroprudential risks. The O-SII buffer would not be the appropriate tool to address long term non-cyclical systemic or macroprudential risks affecting the banking sector as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU mandates designated authorities to identify other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) and set or reset an O-SII buffer for those institutions. The Ministry has separately notified the intention to set O-SII buffers for two systemically important institutions. It considers these buffers complementary, as the O-SII buffers address part of the risk of a concentration of systemically important institutions, while the systemic risk buffer addresses other long-term non-cyclical systemic risks. According to the Minstry, a number of other credit institutions are big enough to potentially amplify systemic risks in the Norwegian banking sector, while remaining too small to be identified, by the Ministry, as domestic systemically important on an individual basis. The Standing Committee considers that Article 131 of Directive 2013/36/EU is not meant to address all types of long term non-cyclical systemic or macroprudential risks. The O-SII buffer would not be the appropriate tool to address long term non-cyclical systemic or macroprudential risks affecting the banking sector as a whole.

| (25) | The countercyclical buffer referred to in Article 136 of Directive 2013/36/EU applies to all non-financial private sector exposures located in a jurisdiction. The Ministry argues that the countercyclical buffer is designed to address a different form of systemic risk, stemming from cyclicality in the financial system. The Standing Committee concurs with this assessment. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The countercyclical buffer referred to in Article 136 of Directive 2013/36/EU applies to all non-financial private sector exposures located in a jurisdiction. The Ministry argues that the countercyclical buffer is designed to address a different form of systemic risk, stemming from cyclicality in the financial system. The Standing Committee concurs with this assessment.

| (26) | After examining the arguments put forward by the Ministry, the Standing Committee agrees with the Ministry that existing measures in Directive 2013/36/EU or in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (excluding Articles 458 and 459 of that Regulation), alone or in combination, would be relatively less effective in sufficiently and adequately addressing the identified risk. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

After examining the arguments put forward by the Ministry, the Standing Committee agrees with the Ministry that existing measures in Directive 2013/36/EU or in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (excluding Articles 458 and 459 of that Regulation), alone or in combination, would be relatively less effective in sufficiently and adequately addressing the identified risk.

| (27) | As regards the potential impact on the internal market, the Standing Committee notes that there is no indication that the notified measure has a disproportionate effect on the five subsidiaries of credit institutions established in other EEA States. Additionally, in order to reduce the potential for leakages to foreign institutions that are active in Norway through branches, the Ministry plans to request reciprocation of the SyRB for all EEA institutions with exposures to Norway. The Standing Committee considers that this is important in view of the comparatively strong presence on the Norwegian lending market of banks from other Nordic countries, with a view to preventing regulatory arbitrage and avoiding leakages through branches. There are specific Memoranda of Understanding in place to promote cross-border financial stability and ensure adequate prudential supervision of significant branches of financial institutions operating in the Nordic-Baltic region. (6) The Standing Committee notes that the reciprocation request and the higher capital requirements this would imply for foreign credit institutions will be assessed by the ESRB when the Ministry will request the ESRB to recommend to its members to reciprocate the measure. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

As regards the potential impact on the internal market, the Standing Committee notes that there is no indication that the notified measure has a disproportionate effect on the five subsidiaries of credit institutions established in other EEA States. Additionally, in order to reduce the potential for leakages to foreign institutions that are active in Norway through branches, the Ministry plans to request reciprocation of the SyRB for all EEA institutions with exposures to Norway. The Standing Committee considers that this is important in view of the comparatively strong presence on the Norwegian lending market of banks from other Nordic countries, with a view to preventing regulatory arbitrage and avoiding leakages through branches. There are specific Memoranda of Understanding in place to promote cross-border financial stability and ensure adequate prudential supervision of significant branches of financial institutions operating in the Nordic-Baltic region. (6) The Standing Committee notes that the reciprocation request and the higher capital requirements this would imply for foreign credit institutions will be assessed by the ESRB when the Ministry will request the ESRB to recommend to its members to reciprocate the measure.

| (28) | Given the high degree of interconnectedness with the financial systems of other Nordic countries, the Standing Committee expects the notified measure to be conducive to financial stability to the extent that regulatory arbitrage and leakages can be avoided by reciprocation of the notified measure for material exposures of foreign credit institutions to the Norwegian market, including the operations of any significant foreign bank branches. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Given the high degree of interconnectedness with the financial systems of other Nordic countries, the Standing Committee expects the notified measure to be conducive to financial stability to the extent that regulatory arbitrage and leakages can be avoided by reciprocation of the notified measure for material exposures of foreign credit institutions to the Norwegian market, including the operations of any significant foreign bank branches.

| (29) | Considering all the factors above, as required by Art. 133 of CRD IV, having reviewed the notification with Norway and consulted with relevant parties to this process, the EFTA Standing Committee concludes that the systemic risk buffer of 4,5 % on domestic exposures does not entail disproportionate adverse effects on the whole or parts of the financial system of Norway or of the EEA as a whole. Neither does it form or create an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market, |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Considering all the factors above, as required by Art. 133 of CRD IV, having reviewed the notification with Norway and consulted with relevant parties to this process, the EFTA Standing Committee concludes that the systemic risk buffer of 4,5 % on domestic exposures does not entail disproportionate adverse effects on the whole or parts of the financial system of Norway or of the EEA as a whole. Neither does it form or create an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

| 1. | The systemic risk buffer notified on 5 November by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance ('Finansdepartmentet') according to Article 133(11) of Directive 2013/36/EU as adapted by Joint Committee Decision No 79/2019, is justified, suitable, proportionate and effective to address the systemic risks for which it is intended. The Standing Committee of the EFTA States further notes that:






  (a) | the dimension of the identified systemic or macroprudential risks constitutes a threat to the stability of the Norwegian financial system of such nature that the introduction of a systemic risk buffer rate of 4,5 % for domestic exposures is justified; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(a)

the dimension of the identified systemic or macroprudential risks constitutes a threat to the stability of the Norwegian financial system of such nature that the introduction of a systemic risk buffer rate of 4,5 % for domestic exposures is justified;

| (b) | the notified measure is likely to be effective and suitable to mitigate the risk in a proportionate manner; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the notified measure is likely to be effective and suitable to mitigate the risk in a proportionate manner;

| (c) | other macroprudential measures in Directive 2013/36/EU or in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, alone or in combination, would be relatively less effective in sufficiently and adequately addressing the identified risk; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

other macroprudential measures in Directive 2013/36/EU or in Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, alone or in combination, would be relatively less effective in sufficiently and adequately addressing the identified risk;

| (d) | the notified measure, including its application to subsidiaries whose parents are established in other EEA States, does not entail disproportionate adverse effects on the financial system of Norway or of the EEA as a whole and does not constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the notified measure, including its application to subsidiaries whose parents are established in other EEA States, does not entail disproportionate adverse effects on the financial system of Norway or of the EEA as a whole and does not constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market.

| 2. | The Standing Committee of the EFTA States does not recommend any changes to the notified measure in view of its effects on subsidiaries of credit institutions established in other EEA States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2020.

For the Standing Committee

The Chair

Sabine MONAUNI

The Secretary-General

Henri GÉTAZ

---

(1)  Seehttps://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/warnings/esrb.warning190923_no_warning~d3e4f2c135.en.pdf?4cf3e3031aa71bffaa0bd97a66b311ac

1

(2)  Norges Bank (2020), Financial Stability Report, p. 52.

2

Financial Stability Report

(3)  International Monetary Fund (2020), Financial System Stability Assessment for Norway, IMF Country Report no. 20/259, August.

3

Financial System Stability Assessment for Norway

(4)  Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2019), The costs and benefits of bank capital – a review of the literature, Working Paper 37, June.

4

The costs and benefits of bank capital – a review of the literature

(5)  International Monetary Fund (2020), Financial System Stability Assessment for Norway, IMF Country Report no. 20/259, August, p. 2.

5

Financial System Stability Assessment for Norway

(6)  Seehttps://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ff0c28c162ca43f39b585d7c9f94dab5/nbsg-mou_2018.pdf

6

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Special Packaging Solutions Investment S.à.r.l. (‘SPSI’, Luxembourg), controlled by Investindustrial S.A. (‘Investindustrial’, Luxembourg), |
| --- | --- |

—

Special Packaging Solutions Investment S.à.r.l. (‘SPSI’, Luxembourg), controlled by Investindustrial S.A. (‘Investindustrial’, Luxembourg),

| — | Guala Closure S.p.A. (‘Guala’, Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

Guala Closure S.p.A. (‘Guala’, Italy).

SPSI acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Guala.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and a public bid announced on 8 December 2020.

2.

| — | for Investindustrial: group of independently managed investment, holding and financial advisory companies focused on investments in medium-sized companies based in Europe. Investindustrial’s portfolio focuses on three main investment areas: consumer and leisure; healthcare and services; and industrial manufacturing, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Investindustrial: group of independently managed investment, holding and financial advisory companies focused on investments in medium-sized companies based in Europe. Investindustrial’s portfolio focuses on three main investment areas: consumer and leisure; healthcare and services; and industrial manufacturing,

| — | for Guala: production of non-refillable and aluminium closures for spirits, wine, oil and vinegar, water, and beverages. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Guala: production of non-refillable and aluminium closures for spirits, wine, oil and vinegar, water, and beverages.

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.10118 — Investindustrial/Guala Closures

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 |

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

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/16

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10087 — PROXIMUS/NEXUS INFRASTRUCTURE/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Proximus NV (‘Proximus’, Belgium); |
| --- | --- |

—

Proximus NV (‘Proximus’, Belgium);

| — | Nexus Infrastructure S.à r.l. (‘Nexus Infrastructure’, Luxembourg); |
| --- | --- |

—

Nexus Infrastructure S.à r.l. (‘Nexus Infrastructure’, Luxembourg);

| — | Nexus Fiber BV (‘Nexus Fiber’, Belgium). |
| --- | --- |

—

Nexus Fiber BV (‘Nexus Fiber’, Belgium).

2.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

4.

| — | for Proximus: operator of fixed and mobile electronic communication services and networks for residential and business customers in Belgium, both at the retail and wholesale level. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Proximus: operator of fixed and mobile electronic communication services and networks for residential and business customers in Belgium, both at the retail and wholesale level.

| — | for Nexus Infrastructure: special purpose vehicle with no other current business activities than its use as a holding company for purposes of the Notified Transaction. Nexus Infrastructure is part of the EQT group and indirectly controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. EQT is a global integrated alternative investments firm, which amongst other things, invests in infrastructure and infrastructure-related assets and businesses primarily in Europe and North America. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Nexus Infrastructure: special purpose vehicle with no other current business activities than its use as a holding company for purposes of the Notified Transaction. Nexus Infrastructure is part of the EQT group and indirectly controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l. EQT is a global integrated alternative investments firm, which amongst other things, invests in infrastructure and infrastructure-related assets and businesses primarily in Europe and North America.

| — | for Nexus Fiber: operator (including roll-out) of a dense passive open point-to-point Fiber-To-The-X (‘FTTx’) network in certain parts of the Flanders Region of Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Nexus Fiber: operator (including roll-out) of a dense passive open point-to-point Fiber-To-The-X (‘FTTx’) network in certain parts of the Flanders Region of Belgium.

3.

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

4.

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

5.

M.10087 — Proximus/Nexus Infrastructure/JV

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 |

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

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/17

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10161 — The Goldman Sachs Group/Warburg Pincus/Good Host Spaces)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/09)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Warburg Pincus LLC (‘Warburg Pincus’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Warburg Pincus LLC (‘Warburg Pincus’, USA),

| — | The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’, USA),

| — | Good Host Spaces Private Limited (‘Good Host’, India). |
| --- | --- |

—

Good Host Spaces Private Limited (‘Good Host’, India).

Warburg Pincus, indirectly through Baskin Lake Investment Ltd, and Goldman Sachs acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Good Host, which is currently jointly controlled by Goldman Sachs and Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Warburg Pincus: global private equity firm headquartered in New York. Its portfolio companies are active in a variety of sectors, including energy, financial services, healthcare, industrial and business services and technology, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Warburg Pincus: global private equity firm headquartered in New York. Its portfolio companies are active in a variety of sectors, including energy, financial services, healthcare, industrial and business services and technology,

| — | for Goldman Sachs: global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of banking, securities and investment services worldwide to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Goldman Sachs: global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of banking, securities and investment services worldwide to a substantial and diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals,

| — | for Good Host: a student housing company that provides high quality accommodation to students in towns and cities within India, including at Manipal University in Jaipur. Its corporate office is located in Mumbai. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Good Host: a student housing company that provides high quality accommodation to students in towns and cities within India, including at Manipal University in Jaipur. Its corporate office is located in Mumbai.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

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.10161 — The Goldman Sachs Group/Waburg Pincus/Good Host Spaces

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 |

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/19

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10151 - LINDE/SIPCHEM/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/10)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Linde GmbH (‘Linde’, Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

Linde GmbH (‘Linde’, Germany),

| — | Sahara International Petrochemical Company (‘Sipchem’, Saudi Arabia), |
| --- | --- |

—

Sahara International Petrochemical Company (‘Sipchem’, Saudi Arabia),

| — | a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’, Saudi Arabia). |
| --- | --- |

—

a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’, Saudi Arabia).

Linde and Sipchem acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the JV.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for Linde: Linde GmbH forms part of a multinational group of companies ultimately owned by Linde plc that mainly focus on gases and engineering services, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Linde: Linde GmbH forms part of a multinational group of companies ultimately owned by Linde plc that mainly focus on gases and engineering services,

| — | for Sipchem: Sipchem is the ultimate parent of a group of companies that is active in the production and marketing of basic and intermediate petrochemical products. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Sipchem: Sipchem is the ultimate parent of a group of companies that is active in the production and marketing of basic and intermediate petrochemical products.

| — | for the JV: the JV will be active in the onsite supply of industrial gases in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia |
| --- | --- |

—

for the JV: the JV will be active in the onsite supply of industrial gases in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

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.10151— Linde/Sipchem/JV

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 |

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/20

---

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2021/C 65/11)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1).

COMMUNICATION OF STANDARD AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘LA MANCHA’

PDO-ES-A0045-AM03

Date of communication: 18.11.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Amendment of the minimum actual alcoholic strength for white and rosé wines, and specification of the minimum actual alcoholic strength for semi-sparkling wines (section 2.1 of the product specification and point 2.1 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The minimum actual alcoholic strength of white and rosé wines is increased to 9 %, and the minimum actual alcoholic strength of semi-sparkling wines is expressly specified.

Consumers these days want wines with a higher residual sugar content, so this type of wine needs a lower actual alcoholic strength to be able to achieve the required residual sugar content.

It is also specified that the minimum actual alcoholic strength of the white, rosé and red wines also applies to semi-sparkling wines.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment adapts the analytical parameters, but does not entail a substantial change to the protected product, which retains the characteristics and profile described in the link, these resulting from the interplay between natural and human factors. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

2.   Adaption of the sulphur dioxide contents and the terminology of the analytical parameters for residual sugar and volatile acidity to the applicable rules (section 2.1 of the specification and point 2.1 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The ‘residual sugar’ analytical parameter has been renamed ‘total sugar expressed as glucose plus fructose’ in accordance with Article 20 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 of 17 October 2018, which provides for the determination of total sugars expressed in terms of fructose and glucose.

Note also that the volatile acidity shall be expressed as acetic acid.

Article 20 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 also establishes sulphur dioxide as an analytical parameter to be determined, so this parameter is added for sparkling wine. For the wines in sections 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 the limits are specified in accordance with Part B of Annex I to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/934 of 12 March 2019.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment adapts the terminology used for the physico-chemical characteristics, but does not entail any change to the final product, which retains the characteristics and profile described in the link, these resulting from the interplay between natural and human factors. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

3.   Redefinition of the organoleptic characteristics (section 2.2 of the specification and point 2.2 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The implementation of standard UNE-EN-ISO 17065 in the verification of the specification makes it necessary to amend the organoleptic description of the wines covered so that their characteristics can be linked to descriptors that can be assessed by a tasting panel meeting the criteria laid down in the UNE-EN-ISO 17025 standard.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment is an adaptation to the organoleptic properties so that they can be better assessed in sensory analysis. It does not entail a substantial change to the product, which continues to have the characteristics and profile described in the link, as a result of the interplay between environmental and human factors. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into any of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

4.   The regulatory references are updated (section 3.2.5 of the specification and point 3.2.5 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The regulatory references have been replaced by the current Regulation, and the reference to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products has been incorporated.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment is an update. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into any of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

5.   Clarification with regard to processing wineries and places of production (section 4 of the specification and point 4 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The last paragraph specifies that the wines will be produced in wineries in the La Mancha production area and made using grapes from parcels listed in the interprofessional vineyard register, in order to dispel doubts as to the location of the processing wineries and to improve the control and traceability of places of production.

Type of amendment: standard

The wording of the paragraph has just been improved, but the area itself has not been changed. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into any of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

6.   Addition of the Moscatel de Alejandría [Muscat of Alexandria] and Garnacha tintorera varieties (section 6 of the specification and point 6 of the single document)

Description and reasons.

The white variety ‘Moscatel de Alexandria’ and the red variety ‘Garnacha tintorera’ are added to the specification. The white variety ‘Moscatel de Alexandria’ is typically Mediterranean. Its aromatic characteristics and sugar content make it suitable for the production of La Mancha wines. The red variety ‘Garnacha tintorera’ is also suitable for this area, as is borne out by the existence of thousands of hectares of this variety in our production area. After verifying its potential for producing quality wines and its compliance with the requirements of the specification for the La Mancha PDO, on the basis of multiple samples assessed, this interprofessional association decided to include it in the specification.

Both the white wine made (wholly or partly) with ‘Moscatel de Alejandría’ and the red wine made (wholly or partly) with ‘Garnacha tintorera’ are products that are well established in the production area. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to include varieties which have already been grown in the area for some time in the product specification.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment allows the production of the same types of wine with the same characteristics as those of the protected product. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

7.   Rewording of the applicable requirements in several paragraphs (section 8 of the specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

Paragraph 1: The section has been reworded to make it more explicit that the bottling carried out by wineries within and outside the production area and entered in the corresponding register of the La Mancha PDO must comply with the bottling requirements and verifiable traceability for La Mancha wines. Furthermore, any wine placed on the market with the La Mancha PDO must bear its secondary label or seal of guarantee issued by the aforementioned interprofessional association.

Paragraph 2: The bottling capacity is extended to include PET bottles (only in bottles of 18,7 cl and exclusively for airlines and those establishments where the use of glass is prohibited), to comply with regulations on aviation safety and public establishments.

Paragraph 3: The percentage required in order to use the name of a specific, single grape variety is updated to 85 %. This brings it into line with the applicable legislation (Article 50(1)(a)(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018, supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013).

The regulatory references to the standards currently in force are also updated.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment is a rewording and an update. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into any of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

8.   Update of the regulatory reference (section 9.2 of the specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

In paragraphs 3 and 9 the reference to the repealed regulations is replaced with a reference to the regulations in force.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment is an update. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into any of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

La Mancha

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

| 5. | Quality sparkling wine |
| --- | --- |

5.

Quality sparkling wine

| 8. | Semi-sparkling wine |
| --- | --- |

8.

Semi-sparkling wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

White and rosé wine, young and traditional wines, and ‘oaked’ whites

Low alcoholic strength. The white wines range in shade from greenish to yellow, stopping short of golden. They are bold and fruity with primary aromas, slightly acidic and balanced.

If they have spent time in barrels, their colour is yellow to golden or straw-coloured, with toasted hints against a background of vanilla and long oaky, fruity notes.

The rosé wines vary in colour from rose to gently reddish, with bold aromas, fruity and/or floral. They are slightly acidic, balanced and have a fruity taste.

Barrel-fermented wines have aromas and an after-taste reminiscent of the barrel.

| * | Maximum volatile [acidity] of young wines: 8,33 meq/l |
| --- | --- |

*

Maximum volatile [acidity] of young wines: 8,33 meq/l

| * | Maximum sulphites: 190 mg/l where sugar > 5 g/l (‘oaked’ wines excepted)






  General analytical characteristics |
| --- | --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | 9 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 10 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 140 |

*

Maximum sulphites: 190 mg/l where sugar > 5 g/l (‘oaked’ wines excepted)

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

9

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

10

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

140

Young and traditional red wines and ‘oaked’ reds

Purplish-red to pomegranate in colour, the wines are bold, fruity, with primary aromas. On tasting, they are tannic, with balanced alcohol/acidity, long and fruity.

The wines that have spent time in barrels range from pomegranate to ruby. They are bold, fruity, with primary and vanilla aromas. In the mouth they are long and balanced with touches of vanilla.

With further ageing, the wines can have terracotta or orange tints. They are long and honeyed. In the mouth, they are smooth, harmonious, round and structured.

In barrel-fermented wines, aromas and after-taste are provided by the barrel.

| * | Maximum volatile [acidity] of young wines: 8,33 meq/l |
| --- | --- |

*

| * | Maximum sulphites: 180 mg/l where sugar > 5 g/l (‘oaked’ wines excepted) |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 11,5 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 10 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 130 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

11,5

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

10

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

130

Naturally sweet traditional wine

Consistent with the drys in the whites and ranging from garnet to tawny in the reds. Intensely aromatic, reminiscent of fruit and/or jams, balanced and full-bodied.

| * | The value for total maximum alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 13 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 20 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 250 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

13

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

20

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

250

White and red wine called ‘crianza’, ‘reserva’ and ‘gran reserva’

The white wines range from straw-coloured to golden with different levels of intensity depending on age. Woody and toasted aromas. Balanced.

The red wines range from garnet red to terracotta depending on age. With age, the aromas shift from fruity to woody and/or toasted. In the mouth they are balanced and full-bodied.

| * | The value for total maximum alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| ** | The minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume is set in the specification depending on whether it is a white or red wine. |
| --- | --- |

**

| *** | Lower limits of volatile acidity depending on level and length of ageing. |
| --- | --- |

***

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 20 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 150 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

20

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

150

Quality sparkling wine

The sparkling white wines vary in shade from pale to golden and bright, while the shades in the rosés are pale pink. The bubbles are small and persistent.

The aromas are clean and fruity.

On tasting, they are broad and balanced.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 11,66 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

11,66

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

Semi-sparkling wine

The semi-sparkling wines can be white wines with different yellow tints, rosés in different shades of pink and red wines with a purplish-red colour.

To the nose, the white wines present fruity aromas, while the rosés and reds present intense aromas reminiscent of red fruits.

They are broad and balanced wines, with a fruity aftertaste and prominent carbon dioxide.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 10 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

10

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

The white, rosé and red wines covered [by this PDO] shall be made exclusively from the permitted varieties. Blending white wine and red wine varieties is not permitted.

The maximum conversion rate shall be 74 litres of wine for every 100 kilogrammes of grapes harvested.

The white and rosé wines are made by crushing the bunches and draining using the static or dynamic system. They may be macerated beforehand for the extraction of aromas and colour, the must being fermented at a maximum temperature of 22 °C.

The red wines must be fermented with the skins for at least 3 days at a maximum temperature of 28 °C.

b.   Maximum yields

Goblet-trained vineyards

10 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Goblet-trained vineyards

74 hectolitres per hectare

Espalier-trained vineyards

13 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Espalier-trained vineyards

96,2 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

La Mancha is a natural and historic region located in the Autonomous Community of Castile-La Mancha, in the centre of Spain. It covers the northern part of the province of Albacete, the southern and south-western part of Ciudad Real, the eastern part of Toledo and the south-western part of the province of Cuenca.

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

AIRÉN

BOBAL

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

RED GRENACHE

MACABEO - VIURA

SYRAH

TEMPRANILLO - CENCIBEL

VERDEJO

8.   Description of the link(s)

‘Wine’

The soil composition of the Manchegan plain is a product of the Miocene sedimentation of limestone, marl and sand, giving earth of a brown or reddish-brown colour.

Indeed, the abundance of limestone soils in La Mancha makes the area ideal for producing full-bodied red wines, suitable for maturing, while the sandy limestone confers a pleasing strength on the wine.

The lack of rainfall (300 to 350 mm annually) and the high exposure to sunlight (3 000 hours of sun) produce intensely coloured wines in which aromatic intensity is given a clear boost.

The average vineyard yield is low, which also helps to give the wines an excellent balance.

‘Semi-sparkling wine’

The extreme continental climate, the composition of the reddish brown soil and the high temperatures create the fruity aromas and tints in the semi-sparkling wines. The wines described in the section on wine are used to produce these wines. Therefore, the content of that section also applies to these wines.

‘Quality sparkling wines’

The geographical environment enables cultivation of the varieties laid down in the specification, which give the wines breadth and balance. Similarly, the lack of rainfall and hours of sunlight produce a natural alcoholic strength enabling the production of wines with the established levels of alcoholic strength. For the production of the sparkling wines, the wines mentioned in the section on wine are used as base wine. Therefore, the content of that section also applies to the sparkling wines.

9.   Essential further conditions (packaging, labelling, other requirements)

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

In order to name a specific, single grape variety, at least 86 % of the grapes used must be of that variety, which must be shown in the winery records.

The quality sparkling wines of the La Mancha PDO can use the terms ‘Premium’ and ‘Reserva’ on their labels.

Link to the product specification

http://pagina.jccm.es/agricul/paginas/comercial-industrial/consejos_new/pliegos/Mod_PC_La_Mancha_20200731_MP_I.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/28

---

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2021/C 65/12)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1).

COMMUNICATION OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘LOS CERRILLOS’

PDO-ES-02228-AM01

Date of communication: 16.11.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Addition of the Petit Verdot variety in the description of the wines (sections 2.a and 2.b of the specification and point 4 of the single document)

The description of the wines now includes wines made with the Petit Verdot variety. Accordingly, analytical parameters and organoleptic characteristics have been defined for the two Petit Verdot types: Petit Verdot (aged 6 months) and Petit Verdot (aged 12 months).

Given that the demarcated area of the Los Cerrillos PDO includes a parcel of Petit Verdot grapes whose wines also have the characteristics and profile of the rest of the wines covered by the Los Cerrillos PDO, we wish to amend the specification to include the Petit Verdot red variety and the red wines made from it.

Type of amendment: standard

The wines of the Petit Verdot variety are added in the ‘Wine’ category, which remains the only category authorised in the product specification. It is thus considered that this amendment does not modify, add to or delete any category of wine. It therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

2.   Adaptation of the terminology of the analytical parameters for residual sugar to the applicable rules (section 2.a of the specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

The ‘residual sugars’ analytical parameter has been renamed ‘total sugars expressed as glucose plus fructose’ in accordance with Article 20 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 of 17 October 2018, which provides for the determination of total sugars expressed in terms of fructose and glucose.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment adapts the terminology used for the physico-chemical characteristics, but does not entail any change to the final product, which retains the characteristics and profile described in the link, these resulting from the interplay between natural and human factors. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

3.   Adaptation of the units of measurement of the phenolic compounds (TPI) (section 2.a of the specification. The single document is not affected)

The units of measurement of total polyphenols have been adapted. The concentration of polyphenols in wine known as the TPI (Total Polyphenols Index) is a measure of the concentration of a whole group of phenolic compounds present in the grapes and in the wine. It gives us an idea of the potential colour of the wine. The TPI generally corresponds to the sum of anthocyanins and tannins present in the wine and is defined as:

TPI = ultraviolet index = A280 x dilution factor.

This being an index, the measurement units of meq/l are removed.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment adapts the terminology used for the physico-chemical characteristics, but does not entail any change to the final product, which retains the characteristics and profile described in the link, these resulting from the interplay between natural and human factors. It is thus considered that this amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

4.   Rewording of the specific oenological practices in view of the addition of the wine produced with the ‘Petit Verdot’ variety (section 3 of the specification and point 5.a of the single document)

Description and reasons

The specific oenological practices for the production of the Petit Verdot wine, which, in accordance with point 1, has been included in the section on the description of the wines, have been incorporated.

Type of amendment: standard

Since Petit Verdot is added into the section on the description of the wines, with the abovementioned justification, it is necessary to lay down its conditions of production and restrictions in order to maintain the essence of the wines from the area. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

5.   Addition of the maximum yields of the Petit Verdot variety (section 5 of the specification and point 5.b of the single document)

Description of reasons:

The addition of wine made from the Petit Verdot variety to the description of the wines made it necessary to establish the maximum yield per hectare of this variety.

Type of amendment: standard

The addition of wine made from the Petit Verdot variety to the section on the description of the wines, with the justification set out in point 1, also makes it necessary to add the yields for the Petit Verdot variety. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

6.   Addition of the ‘Petit Verdot’ variety (section 6 of the specification. The single document is not affected)

Description of reasons:

The addition of wine made from the Petit Verdot variety to the description of the wines in the specification made it necessary to add this variety in this section.

Type of amendment: standard

The addition of wine made from the Petit Verdot variety to the section on the description of the wines, with the justification set out in point 1 also makes it necessary to add the Petit Verdot variety. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

7.   Updated legal framework of section 8 ‘other applicable requirements’ (section 8 of the specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

In section 8 ‘Other applicable requirements’, the reference to the repealed regulations is replaced with a reference to the regulations in force to update the legal framework.

Type of amendment: standard

The proposed changes to this section do not entail any change in the name to be protected nor any new restrictions on marketing. This amendment therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Los Cerrillos

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

Tempranillo red wine, Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon red wine, and Syrah Petit Verdot red wine (6 months)

Red wine with a purplish or cherry-red colour and violet rim. Its aroma is characterised by fruit with floral fragrances. On the palate, it is pleasant, fresh and well-structured.

| * | The value of the maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

The value of the maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 12,5 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4,8 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 15 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 115 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

12,5

Minimum total acidity:

4,8 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

15

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

115

Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon red wine (Private Collection), Petit Verdot (12 months) and Cabernet Sauvignon red wine (Family)

Cherry-coloured and garnet/terracotta rim. Aroma of ripe fruits characterised by notes of liquorice and balsam. It is fleshy, potent and structured on the palate, with rich and creamy hints of ageing.

| * | The value of the maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

The value of the maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 13 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4,8 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 16 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 115 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

13

Minimum total acidity:

4,8 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

16

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

115

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

The varietal wines are made in stainless steel containers. They undergo a long pre-fermentation cold maceration for two to five days at a temperature of 10 to 15 °C, followed by maceration during fermentation for one or two weeks at temperatures of between 20 and 28 °C, until alcoholic fermentation is complete.

The wines that are intended for ageing in barrels are made in stainless steel and undergo maceration during fermentation for 15 to 25 days at temperatures of between 25 and 30 °C. Throughout this process, ‘délestage’ is carried out to encourage extraction of the colour and the phenolic compounds present in the cap during fermentation on skins.

Relevant restriction on making the wines

The vinified grapes are not pressed but instead undergo static draining to obtain the ‘drip’ wines. The rest of the marc undergoes gentle dynamic draining, resulting in very low yields.

Once malolactic fermentation is complete, the wines are clarified naturally by decanting rather than being chemically treated, and they are transferred for ageing into 225-litre oak barrels, which are used for a maximum of 6 years.

The wines are then bottled for the reduction process to take place and for the wine to reach its optimum drinking state.

Tempranillo: 100 % Tempranillo kept in oak barrels for at least 30 days.

Syrah: 100 % Syrah, aged in oak barrels for at least 6 months.

Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon: blend of Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon, matured in oak barrels for at least 6 months.

Private Collection: blend of Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon, matured in oak barrels for at least 13 months.

‘Cabernet Sauvignon de Familia’ (Family Reserve Cabernet): 100 % Cabernet Sauvignon. Matured for at least 24 months in barrels. The ageing process is completed by resting in bottles for 18 months.

Petit Verdot (6 months).- Petit Verdot 100 % aged for least 6 months in oak barrels.

Petit Verdot (12 months).- Petit Verdot 100 % aged for least 12 months in oak barrels.

Cultivation method

During the growing period, green pruning is carried out to restrict natural growth and improve yield, and therefore the quality of the grapes.

The grapes are harvested between 5 o’clock and 11 o’clock in the morning to avoid them being harvested at high temperatures, thereby ensuring a proper cold maceration.

b.   Maximum yields

Tempranillo

12 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Tempranillo

88,80 hectolitres per hectare

Cabernet Sauvignon

9 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Cabernet Sauvignon

66,60 hectolitres per hectare

Syrah

13 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Syrah

96,20 hectolitres per hectare

Chardonnay

9 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Chardonnay

66,60 hectolitres per hectare

Petit Verdot

12 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Petit Verdot

81,60 hectolitres per hectare

Merlot

8 500 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Merlot

62,90 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The area includes the following parcels in the municipality of Argamasilla de Alba (Ciudad Real):

AREA/PARCEL

| 109 | 62, 63 |
| --- | --- |
| 111 | 15, 30 and 9001 |
| 131 | 71 |
| 151 | 115 to 121, 190, 277, 278, 9001, 9002, 9004 to 9006, 9008, 9023 |
| 160 | 8 to 13, 15, 16, 17, 21 to 23, 30, 31, 9003, 9005, 9006 |
| 161 | 14, 16 to 27, 31 to 33, 35, 9001 to 9004 |
| 162 | 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 8, 11 to 13, 17 to 18, 9001, 9002 |
| 163 | 1, 3, 4, 6 to 21, 9001, 9004 |
| 171 | 1, 3 to 7, 9004 to 9009, 011 to 012 |
| 173 | 2, 3, 9001, 9006, |
| 174 | 1, 3 to 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 9001, 9003 to 9011, 9013 to 9020 |
| 175 | 1, 9001, 9002 |
| 176 | 3 to 18, 9001, 9003 |
| 177 | 18 to 23, 25 to 32, 66 to 72, 74, 89 to 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 121, 124, 126, 127, 133, 9001 to 9005, 9008 to 9014, 9019, 9022, 9024 to 9029 |
| 178 | 6, 7, 9, 12 to 24, 30 to 31, 34 to 38, 40 to 60, 9001 to 9004, 9006 to 9061 |
| 180 | 1, 2, 5, 9, 9005 to 9007 |
| 181 | 60, 9001, 9002 |
| 194 | 45, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 82, 9002, 9009, 9011, 9028, 8 |
| 195 | 10 to 20, 22 to 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37 to 57, 86, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99 to 108, 112, 114, 118, 119, 9001 to 9006, 9008 to 9014, 9016 to 9018 |

109

62, 63

111

15, 30 and 9001

131

71

151

115 to 121, 190, 277, 278, 9001, 9002, 9004 to 9006, 9008, 9023

160

8 to 13, 15, 16, 17, 21 to 23, 30, 31, 9003, 9005, 9006

161

14, 16 to 27, 31 to 33, 35, 9001 to 9004

162

1, 3 to 5, 7 to 8, 11 to 13, 17 to 18, 9001, 9002

163

1, 3, 4, 6 to 21, 9001, 9004

171

1, 3 to 7, 9004 to 9009, 011 to 012

173

2, 3, 9001, 9006,

174

1, 3 to 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 9001, 9003 to 9011, 9013 to 9020

175

1, 9001, 9002

176

3 to 18, 9001, 9003

177

18 to 23, 25 to 32, 66 to 72, 74, 89 to 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 121, 124, 126, 127, 133, 9001 to 9005, 9008 to 9014, 9019, 9022, 9024 to 9029

178

6, 7, 9, 12 to 24, 30 to 31, 34 to 38, 40 to 60, 9001 to 9004, 9006 to 9061

180

1, 2, 5, 9, 9005 to 9007

181

60, 9001, 9002

194

45, 71, 73, 74, 76, 79, 82, 9002, 9009, 9011, 9028, 8

195

10 to 20, 22 to 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 37 to 57, 86, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99 to 108, 112, 114, 118, 119, 9001 to 9006, 9008 to 9014, 9016 to 9018

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

PETIT VERDOT

SYRAH

TEMPRANILLO - CENCIBEL

8.   Description of the link(s)

‘Environment (natural and human factors)’

Los Cerrillos is a specific area that covers the whole Vega Alta section of the Guadiana River. It is an area of over 60 km2 that begins at the source of the Guadiana River, 3 km upstream of the Peñarroya dam, and extends over 7 km downstream of the dam towards Argamasilla de Alba, also shown on the military map of Spain drawn up in 1975.

The Guadiana River runs through the demarcated area, which is located next to the Peñarroya reservoir at an altitude of 695 metres, surrounded by hills that act as a topographical brake on the growing cycle, bypassing the high night-time temperatures that considerably boost the polyphenolic ripening of the grapes, and bringing about strong ventilation.

The soil is mostly limy. The rock is predominantly marl, a mixture of unconsolidated limestone and clay. It has a loamy texture and a pH of around 8.

The area has a continental Mediterranean climate, characterised by hot summers and cold winters. Fluctuations in temperature can sometimes reach 45 °C and there is a wide range between day-time and night-time temperatures throughout the year. The skies are clear for 80 % of the year; there are usually over 2 500 hours of annual sunshine.

There are considerable differences between Los Cerillos and its neighbouring areas because of its proximity to the Guadiana River. It has much higher rainfall that the rest of Castile-La Mancha, while its temperatures are not as extreme as those of the surrounding areas to the south and west. The harvest takes place around 15 to 20 days later than in the rest of the area.

A ‘délestage’ process is applied throughout alcoholic fermentation: wine-making techniques are used in which the vinified grapes are not pressed, but instead undergo static draining to obtain the ‘drip’ wines, resulting in hectolitre per hectare yields of 62-68 %, and the wines are clarified naturally by decanting.

‘Description of the wine’

Red wine with a purplish or cherry-red colour and hints of violet or maroon-russet. Aroma with predominance of fruit with floral fragrances or ripe fruit with hints of liquorice and balsam. Fresh and pleasing in the mouth, well-structured on the palate with rich and creamy hints of ageing.

As a result of all the above, the alcoholic strength of the wines can exceed 14 %. Combined with an adequate acidity, this alcoholic strength blends in perfectly, making it very important to determine the optimum moment for harvesting by closely monitoring the ripening of the grapes.

The wines have a polyphenol content of up to 80 milliequivalents per litre and they are rich in extracts, aromatic and well-coloured, reaching up to 18 a.u. (sum of the absorbances at 420, 520 and 620 nanometres) in points of colour and an anthocyanin content of up to 800 milligrams per litre.

‘Link’

The location of the demarcated area with its Plio-Quaternary loose materials, hard limestone, marl and ochre clay results in well-coloured wines with the characteristic mineralisation, reaching as many as 18 points of colour.

The River Guadiana crosses through the Los Cerillos vineyard estate, which is located beside the Peñarroya reservoir at an altitude of 695 metres and surrounded by hills. This means it is an area of cool temperatures, which encourages photosynthesis and the formation of the berries and sugars. It reduces the pH, increases the acidity level and gives rise to a phenolic compound content of up to 80 milliequivalents per litre and a higher concentration of anthocyanins (up to 800 milligrams per litre).

The ‘délestage’ process throughout alcoholic fermentation, the practice of not pressing the grapes and the natural clarification process by decanting, gives rise to wines with more floral than fruity aromas and aged wines with spiced, roasted notes and touches of liquorice and balsam.

Although the demarcated geographical area is surrounded by the La Mancha PDO, its characteristics are substantially different to the adjoining demarcated area as regards the following factors:

Natural factors:

The Guadiana River runs through the vineyard estate, which is located next to the Peñarroya reservoir at an altitude of 695 metres and is surrounded by hills.

The soil is mostly limy. The rock is predominantly marl, a mixture of unconsolidated limestone and clay. The area has a climate characterised by hot summers and cold winters. There are late frosts in the spring, which has made it necessary to install some of the few frost protection systems that work by inversion in Spain, and the only ones in Castile-La Mancha, to control the heavy spring frosts and to control the morning dew and keep the vines dry during harvesting.

Human factors:

The most significant differences in the production methods of Los Cerrillos wines and those of the adjoining La Mancha PDO lie in the oenological practices, as the vinified grapes are not pressed, but instead undergo static draining to obtain the ‘drip’ wines, resulting in hectolitre-per-hectare yields of 62-68 %, and the wines are clarified naturally by decanting.

As regards the characteristics of the wines, the most significant differences (taking aged red wines as the benchmark, as this is the only type that is produced at Los Cerrillos) are as follows:

| LA MANCHA PDO | LOS CERRILLOS | DIFFERENCES |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ≥11,5 % vol. | ≥12,5 % vol. | Higher alcohol content |
| ≤10 meq/l | ≤15 meq/l | Greater volatile acidity |
| 74 % | 68 % | Fewer hl/ha |
| --- | >40 meq/l | More polyphenols |

LA MANCHA PDO

LOS CERRILLOS

DIFFERENCES

≥11,5 % vol.

≥12,5 % vol.

Higher alcohol content

≤10 meq/l

≤15 meq/l

Greater volatile acidity

74 %

68 %

Fewer hl/ha

---

>40 meq/l

More polyphenols

Given the limy soil, the marl rock, the altitude and the influence of the river, there is only one wine-producing vineyard estate in the demarcated area and it is owned by the applicant.

It is important to note that the demarcated area covers 1 570 hectares belonging to different owners but that no other vines have been planted and there are no other wineries there. Therefore, the demarcation was carried out on the basis of the environmental conditions, as described above.

Moreover, other producers may use the registered name if they set up in the demarcated geographical area in the future, provided that they meet the conditions set out in the specification. Considering that the demarcated area covers 1 570 hectares, it is perfectly possible for other wineries to be set up there.

9.   Essential further conditions (packaging, labelling, other requirements)

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Packaging within the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

The wines will be bottled in the production area because in all cases the process is concluded with a second stage of ageing in bottles. There is a reduction process in this period, which enhances the quality of the wines, rounding out their flavour. They are ready for consumption when they attain the organoleptic characteristics set out in the specifications for each type of wine.

Link to the product specification

http://pagina.jccm.es/agricul/paginas/comercial-industrial/consejos_new/pliegos/Mod_Pliego_condiciones_Los_Cerrillos_20200728.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/36

---

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2021/C 65/13)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1).

COMMUNICATION OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘FINCA ÉLEZ’

PDO-ES-A0053-AM03

Date of communication: 16.11.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

Title

ADDITION OF THE ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS OF ROSÉ WINE TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WINES

Section 2.1 ‘Parameters to be considered, analytical limits and tolerances’ of the product specification; the amendment also concerns the section ‘Description of the wines’ in the Single Document.

Description and reasons

Rosé wine is added to the description of the wines, hence the analytical parameters are defined.

NEW DESCRIPTION

| 2.1.9. | Rosé






  — | Actual alcoholic strength by volume not less than 12 % |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.9.

—

Actual alcoholic strength by volume not less than 12 %

| — | Total alcoholic strength by volume not less than 12 % |
| --- | --- |

—

Total alcoholic strength by volume not less than 12 %

| — | Total acidity not less than 4 g/l expressed as tartaric acid |
| --- | --- |

—

Total acidity not less than 4 g/l expressed as tartaric acid

| — | Volatile acidity less than 16,7 meq/l |
| --- | --- |

—

Volatile acidity less than 16,7 meq/l

| — | Total sulphur dioxide less than 150 mg/l |
| --- | --- |

—

Total sulphur dioxide less than 150 mg/l

| — | Reducing sugars less than 10 g/l expressed as glucose |
| --- | --- |

—

Reducing sugars less than 10 g/l expressed as glucose

REASON

Our customers are requesting that we produce rosé wine. We are therefore applying for an amendment to the product specification in order to open up a new market and offer a rosé wine.

Title

ADDITION OF THE ORGANOLEPTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ROSÉ WINE TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WINES

Section 2.2 ‘Characteristics to be determined through organoleptic analyses’ of the product specification; the amendment also concerns the section ‘Description of the wines’ in the Single Document.

Description and reasons

Rosé wine has been added to the description of the wines, hence the organoleptic characteristics are defined.

NEW DESCRIPTION

| 2.2.9. | Rosé






  — | Appearance: Clean and bright with bold pink hues. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.2.9.

—

Appearance: Clean and bright with bold pink hues.

| — | Aroma: Very intense, clean, with toasted notes and hints of red fruits and strawberries. |
| --- | --- |

—

Aroma: Very intense, clean, with toasted notes and hints of red fruits and strawberries.

| — | Taste: Very intense, fruity, with a good balance between acidity and alcoholic strength. |
| --- | --- |

—

Taste: Very intense, fruity, with a good balance between acidity and alcoholic strength.

REASON

Our customers are requesting that we produce rosé wine. We are therefore applying for an amendment to the product specification in order to open up a new market and offer a rosé wine.

Title

ADDITION OF OENOLOGICAL PRACTICES SPECIFIC TO ROSÉ WINE

Section 3. ‘Specific oenological practices’ of the product specification; the amendment also concerns the section ‘Specific oenological practices’ in the Single Document.

Description and reasons

The oenological practices specific to the production of rosé wine have been added in line with its addition to the description of the wines.

NEW DESCRIPTION

| 3.4.6. | Rosé: the following varietals are blended in varying proportions: Tempranillo, Merlot, Cabernet-Sauvignon and Syrah; or a Merlot, Tempranillo, Cabernet-Sauvignon or Syrah monovarietal The must is to be run off in the last two hours of vatting, by means of static cold settling over 24 hours. Once 24 hours have elapsed, the clean must is transferred at a cold temperature to the fermenter. When it reaches a density of 1 015 it is transferred to the barrel where it completes the fermentation process and the subsequent ageing on lees over a period of at least two months. |
| --- | --- |

3.4.6.

REASON

As previously explained, we are requesting the inclusion of this new wine in the product specification since it represents a new market for us and some customers have asked us to cover this segment of the ‘vinos de pago’ [wines produced by individual vineyards or wine estates].

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Finca Élez

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

Young Chardonnay and young red wine

Chardonnay: gold to yellow in colour with a medium intensity. High aromatic intensity with fruity and floral primary aromas. Good alcohol-acidity balance.

Young red with very high colour intensity, violet and red hues, very intense primary aromas with a long aftertaste and round finish.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| ** | Maximum sulphur content: 150 mg/l for young Chardonnay. |
| --- | --- |

**

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 11 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 15 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 130 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

11

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

15

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

130

Partially barrel-fermented Chardonnay wine and red ‘barrel-aged’, ‘crianza’ and ‘reserva’ wines

Chardonnay: gold to yellow in colour with a medium intensity.

High-intensity aromas, presence of complex aromas, fruity and floral aromas, and aromas specific to the ageing process.

Long aftertaste; Tannic structure balanced with alcohol and glycerine.

Aged reds maintain a high colour intensity with violet and red tones; with further ageing the reds acquire garnet and terracotta tones. High-intensity, fruity and bold aromas specific to the ageing process. Complex in the mouth; presence of wood tannins; Good tannic structure, long aftertaste and round finish.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| ** | Maximum sulphur content: 150 mg/l for partially barrel-fermented Chardonnay. |
| --- | --- |

**

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 11,5 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 15 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 130 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

11,5

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

15

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

130

Chardonnay wine

Clear and bright; gold to yellow in colour with a medium intensity.

Presence of fruity and sweet aromas and aromas that are specific to the ageing process, without the latter dominating; medium-high intensity.

Very intense taste; good balance between acidity and sugar.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 12 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 15 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 180 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

12

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

15

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

180

‘Gran Reserva’ red wine

Red and terracotta tones. Very intense on the nose with pronounced aromas specific to the ageing process and ripe fruit aromas.

Wood tannins and a good but not aggressive tannic structure.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 12 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 16,7 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 130 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

12

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

16,7

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

130

Rosé wine

Clean and bright with bold pink hues. Aroma: very intense, clean, with hints of red fruit and strawberries. Taste: very intense, fruity, with a good balance between acidity and alcoholic strength.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 12 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 16,7 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 150 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

12

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

16,7

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

150

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

The pressure during pressing must not produce more than 70 litres for every 100 kg of harvested grapes. Maximum pressing pressure must be less than 2 kg/cm2.

For Chardonnay wines, maceration must take place in a macerator-press tank for at least two hours and at least four hours for late harvest Chardonnay. Homogenisation in tanks for 24-72 hours. At least 10 % must ferment in oak barrels that are new or less than one year old with a maximum capacity of 500 l.

The wine must be left to rest in oak barrels for 2-12 months.

‘Barrel-aged’ and ‘crianza’ reds undergo fermentation and maceration over a period of at least 10 days at temperatures ranging between 25 and 30 oC and over 15 days for ‘reserva’ and ‘gran reserva’ wines.

b.   Maximum yields

Cabernet Sauvignon

9 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Cabernet Sauvignon

66 hectolitres per hectare

Tempranillo

12 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Tempranillo

88,80 hectolitres per hectare

Merlot

8 500 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Merlot

62,90 hectolitres per hectare

Syrah

13 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Syrah

96,20 hectolitres per hectare

Chardonnay

9 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

Chardonnay

66,60 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The estate is located in the municipality of El Bonillo in the province of Albacete.

7.   Main wine grapes

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

CHARDONNAY

TEMPRANILLO – CENCIBEL

8.   Description of the link(s)

The estate is located at an altitude of 1 080 m, it has a continental climate with very dry air and a significant difference in temperature from day to night during the ripening period. The clay-limestone soils are poor, stony and well-drained with a basic pH of around 8.

The wines are balanced with a good acidity and alcoholic strength that tends to be relatively high, producing fresher wines that are more suited to ageing. These wines improve with age and feature fresh fruit that is more acidic along with floral and mineral notes, resembling wines with a Continental rather than a Mediterranean style, with aromas of medium-high intensity; they are elegant, balanced and fresh.

9.   Essential further conditions (packaging, labelling, other requirements)

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

None

Link to the product specification

http://pagina.jccm.es/agricul/paginas/comercial-industrial/consejos_new/pliegos/MOD-PLIEGO_FINCA_ELEZ_20200612-III.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

---

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/42

---

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2021/C 65/14)

This communication is published in accordance with Article 17(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 (1).

COMMUNICATION OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Casa del Blanco’

PDO-ES-A0060-AM02

Date of communication: 16.11.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Adjustment of the analytical parameters due to the addition of new varieties and young wines (Section 2.1 of the product specification and point 3 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The addition of two new varieties, Garnacha and Airén, and the production of young wines using these and other varieties, requires the analytical parameters to be redefined. Therefore, the analytical characteristics of the white and red wines must be adjusted for these new wines.

The geographical area of the Casa del Blanco PDO includes a parcel of Garnacha and a parcel of Airén. Young wines produced with these and other varieties maintain the characteristics and profile of the rest of the Casa del Blanco PDO wines, with high levels of lithium. In view of market demand, as consumers increasingly seek unique, fruity wines that are smooth on the palate and accentuate the flavour of the grape, we request an amendment to the product specification in order to add the analytical characteristics of the young wines made with these grape varieties.

Type of amendment: standard

By adjusting the analytical characteristics of the wines, the single wine category authorised in the product specification is retained, namely category 1 in Annex VII, Part II of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 of 17 December. This amendment does not therefore modify, add to or delete any category. Hence, it does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

2.   Adjustment of the terminology relating to the analytical parameters of the reducing sugar, according to the regulations in force (Section 2.1.1 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

The analytical parameter ‘reducing sugars’ has been changed to ‘total sugars expressed as glucose plus fructose’, in accordance with Article 20 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 of 17 October 2018, establishing the total sugars expressed in terms of fructose and glucose.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment adapts the term used to describe the physical and chemical characteristics, but does not entail any change to the final product, which retains the characteristics and profile described in the link, these resulting from the interplay between environmental and human factors. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

3.   Changes to the organoleptic characteristics (Section 2.2 of the product specification and point 3 of the single document)

Description and reasons

The implementation of the UNE-EN-ISO 17065 standard for the purposes of certification requires a change in the organoleptic description of the protected wines in order to link their characteristics to descriptors that can be assessed by a sensory panel meeting the criteria laid down in the UNE-EN-ISO 17025 standard.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment adapts the organoleptic characteristics so that they can be better assessed in sensory analysis. It does not entail a change to the product, which retains the characteristics and profile described in the link, these resulting from the interplay between environmental and human factors. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

4.   Definition of the organoleptic characteristics due to the addition of the wines from the new varieties and young wines (Section 2.2 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

The addition of two new varieties, Airén and Garnacha, and the production of young wines using these and other varieties, make it necessary to define the organoleptic characteristics of these wines.

The geographical area of the Casa del Blanco PDO includes a parcel of Garnacha and a parcel of Airén. Young wines produced with these and other varieties maintain the characteristics and profile of the rest of the Casa del Blanco PDO wines, with high levels of lithium. In view of market demand, as consumers increasingly seek unique, fruit-forward wines, we request an amendment to the product specification in order to add the analytical characteristics of the young wines made with these grape varieties.

Type of amendment: standard

By adding the organoleptic characteristics of these varieties, the sole category authorised in the product specification is retained, namely category 1 in Annex VII, Part II of Regulation (EU) 1308/2013 of 17 December. It is thus considered that this amendment does not modify, add to or delete any category of wine. It therefore does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

5.   Adaptation of specific oenological practices applicable to white and red wines (Section 3 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

The addition of two new varieties, Garnacha and Airén and the introduction of a new method of producing young wines using these and other varieties, make it necessary to define the production method.

The nominal capacity of the packaging has been increased to 750 ml or more.

In the light of the circumstances described in the above sections, this section sets out the specific oenological practices for producing the new types of wine that have been added. To tailor the wines to current trends in terms of ageing, the wine must be aged in barrels with a capacity of 225 litres or more. In addition, since there is consumer demand for different sized packaging, the nominal capacity of the packaging has been increased to 750 ml or more.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment does not alter the characteristics, profile or identity of the Casa del Blanco PDO wines. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

6.   Review of the demarcated vineyard parcels within the geographical area (Section 4 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

The demand for wines produced from Airén grapes has grown mainly in foreign markets during the summer season. These markets seek wines with a more refreshing profile, a lighter nose and more of an aftertaste, making them less heavy than other more aromatic varieties. In the geographical area adjacent to the Casa del Blanco PDO there is a parcel with grapes of the Airén variety planted in 1945 and 1962. There is also a parcel with grapes of the Garnacha variety planted in 2006. Both parcels are adjacent to the vineyard parcels described in the product specification. Most of the Garnacha parcel is surrounded by the vineyard parcels already described in the product specification. For this reason, and due to the fact that they have the same characteristics as the demarcated geographical area in terms of climate, soil and orography (these parcels also have high levels of lithium), we are requesting an amendment to the product specification to include these parcels within the demarcated area.

Type of amendment: standard

The inclusion of these parcels does not imply a change to the link given that the natural and human factors are the same in both the extended area and the originally demarcated area. In addition, the wines produced maintain the characteristics and profile of the Casa del Blanco PDO wines. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

7.   Addition of the Garnacha and Airén varieties (Section 6 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description of the reasons

Since the monovarietal white wine made from Airén grapes and the multivarietal red wine made with Garnacha grapes have been added to the description of the wines section in the product specification, these varieties are included in this paragraph.

Type of amendment: standard

Since this monovarietal white wine made from Airén grapes and the multivarietal red wine made with Garnacha grapes have been included in the description of the wines section, with the reason given in point 1, the Airén and Garnacha varieties have also been added. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

8.   Updated legislative reference (Section 8 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

In paragraphs one and two of Section 8 of the product specification, the references to the repealed Regulations are replaced with the reference to the Regulations in force, and the traditional terms have been updated, as has been the use of the references regulated in Royal Decree 1363/2011 of 7 October which implements EU legislation on the labelling, presentation and identification of certain wine products, which have been added to paragraph three.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment is an update to the legislation. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

9.   Updated legislative reference (Section 9.2 of the product specification. The single document is not affected)

Description and reasons

In paragraphs three and nine of Section 9.2 of the product specification, the references to the repealed Regulations are replaced by the Regulations in force.

Type of amendment: standard

This amendment is an update to the legislation. It is thus considered that this amendment does not fall into either of the categories provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/33.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Casa del Blanco

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

Red wine

The concentration of lithium ions in these wines is up to 10 times higher than it is in wines from the surrounding area and there is a correlation between the parcels where more lithium was found and the wines containing a higher concentration of the metal.

The red wines are cherry or deep red and intense in colour and have a strong aroma. They are flavourful, fleshy and strong.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 12,5 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 16,7 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 120 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

12,5

Minimum total acidity:

5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

16,7

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

120

White wine

The white wines are clean and clear with white fruit aromas and a straw-yellow colour that is golden at the edges. They are fresh and pleasant with a well-balanced acidity. Long and well-balanced aftertaste.

| * | The maximum total alcoholic strength shall be within the legal limits in accordance with the relevant EU legislation. |
| --- | --- |

*

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | 11,50 |
| Minimum total acidity: | 6 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 16 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | 120 |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

11,50

Minimum total acidity:

6 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

16

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

120

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

In white wines, the must obtained by crushing and pressing the destemmed harvest is settled at a temperature between 10 and 15 oC for a period not less than 18 hours. Controlled fermentation of the must then takes place at a temperature between 13 and 21 oC.

In red wines, each grape variety undergoes alcoholic fermentation individually with the skins for a period not less than 10 days at a temperature between 22 oC and 32 oC. Each variety is individually aged in French and American oak barrels, for a period not less than 12 months, after which the wines are blended and aged in the bottle for at least 12 months.

b.   Maximum yields

7 500 kilograms of grapes per hectare

52,5 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The estate is located in the municipality of Manzanares (Ciudad Real).

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

CABERNET SAUVIGNON

MERLOT

PETIT VERDOT

SYRAH

TEMPRANILLO – CENCIBEL

8.   Description of the link(s)

The estate is located at an altitude of 1 080 m, it has a continental climate with very dry air and there is a significant difference in temperature from day to night during the ripening period. The clay-limestone soils are poor, stony and well-drained with a basic pH of around 8.

The wines are balanced with a good acidity and alcoholic strength that tends to be relatively high, producing fresher wines that are more suited to ageing. These wines improve with age and feature fresh fruit that is more acidic along with floral and mineral notes, resembling wines with a Continental rather than a Mediterranean style, with aromas of medium-high intensity; they are elegant, balanced and fresh.

9.   Essential further conditions (packaging, labelling, other requirements)

NONE

Link to the product specification

http://pagina.jccm.es/agricul/paginas/comercial-industrial/consejos_new/pliegos/PC_Mod_Casa_del_Blanco_20200721_mp.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 11.1.2019, p. 2.

---