# Official Journal C 11/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 11 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5815 January 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 11

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5815 January 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 011/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7369 — Santander/PSA/JVs) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 011/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7369 — Santander/PSA/JVs) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 011/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2015/C 011/03 | Special Report No 19/2014 — EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia | 3 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2015/C 011/04 | Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons | 4 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2015/C 011/05 | Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 011/02

Euro exchange rates

2

Court of Auditors

2015/C 011/03

Special Report No 19/2014 — EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia

3

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2015/C 011/04

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

4

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2015/C 011/05

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS

6

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2015/C 011/06 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 4 September 2014 in the case of Wow air ehf. v Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf. (Case E-18/14) | 16 |
| 2015/C 011/07 | Action brought on 10 November 2014 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-22/14) | 17 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 011/08 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 18 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2015/C 011/06

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 4 September 2014 in the case of Wow air ehf. v Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf. (Case E-18/14)

16

2015/C 011/07

Action brought on 10 November 2014 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-22/14)

17

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 011/08

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

18

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

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7369 — Santander/PSA/JVs)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 11/01)

On 3 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7369. 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 32014M7369. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 January 2015

(2015/C 11/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1775 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4386 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5011 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2010 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0560 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,229 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 319,97 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2863 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4928 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,6957 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4473 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4089 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1301 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5250 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5724 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 277,86 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,5437 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2968 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6845 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 863,25 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2317 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,547 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,9030 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,603 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0909 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2151 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,2273 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1775

JPY

Japanese yen

137,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4386

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77530

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5011

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2010

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0560

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

28,229

HUF

Hungarian forint

319,97

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2863

RON

Romanian leu

4,4928

TRY

Turkish lira

2,6957

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4473

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4089

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1301

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5250

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5724

KRW

South Korean won

1 277,86

ZAR

South African rand

13,5437

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2968

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6845

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 863,25

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2317

PHP

Philippine peso

52,547

RUB

Russian rouble

77,9030

THB

Thai baht

38,603

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0909

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2151

INR

Indian rupee

73,2273

---

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

---

Court of Auditors

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/3

---

Special Report No 19/2014

‘EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia’

(2015/C 11/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 19/2014 ‘EU Pre-accession Assistance to Serbia’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide de Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/4

---

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2015/C 11/04)

The Ministry of Economic Development has received an application from AleAnna Resources LLC for a hydrocarbon exploration licence ‘La Stefanina’ in respect of an area located in Emilia Romagna region (provinces of Ferrara and Ravenna) delimited by the meridian and parallel arcs connecting the points whose geographical coordinates are indicated below:

| Points | Geographical coordinates |
| --- | --- |
| Longitude W (measured from the Monte Mario meridian) | Latitude N |
| a | – 0°28′ | 44°40′ |
| b | – 0°24′ | 44°40′ |
| c | – 0°24′ | 44°38′ |
| d | – 0°20′ | 44°38′ |
| e | – 0°20′ | 44°36′ |
| f | – 0°21′ | 44°36′ |
| g | – 0°21′ | 44°33′ |
| h | – 0°17′ | 44°33′ |
| i | – 0°17′ | 44°32′ |
| l | – 0°23′ | 44°32′ |
| m | – 0°23′ | 44°31′ |
| n | – 0°25′ | 44°31′ |
| o | – 0°25′ | 44°32′ |
| p | – 0°27′ | 44°32′ |
| q | – 0°27′ | 44°33′ |
| r | – 0°28′ | 44°33′ |

Points

Geographical coordinates

Longitude W (measured from the Monte Mario meridian)

Latitude N

a

– 0°28′

44°40′

b

– 0°24′

44°40′

c

– 0°24′

44°38′

d

– 0°20′

44°38′

e

– 0°20′

44°36′

f

– 0°21′

44°36′

g

– 0°21′

44°33′

h

– 0°17′

44°33′

i

– 0°17′

44°32′

l

– 0°23′

44°32′

m

– 0°23′

44°31′

n

– 0°25′

44°31′

o

– 0°25′

44°32′

p

– 0°27′

44°32′

q

– 0°27′

44°33′

r

– 0°28′

44°33′

The above coordinates have been plotted using the map of Italy produced by the Military Geographical Institute (Istituto Geografico Militare, IGM) on a scale of 1:100 000 — Map No 89.

On the basis of these boundaries, the surface area is 139,72 km2.

In accordance with the Directive mentioned above, Article 4 of Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996, the Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and the Director-General’s Order of 22 March 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development must publish a notice to enable other interested parties to submit applications for hydrocarbon exploration licences for the same area as that described above.

The competent authority for granting the relevant exploration licence is Division VI of the Directorate-General for Mineral and Energy Resources at the Ministry of Economic Development.

The rules for granting the mineralogical licence are laid down in more detail in Law No 613 of 21 July 1967, Law No 9 of 9 January 1991, Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996, Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and the Director-General’s Order of 22 March 2011.

The deadline for submitting applications is three months after publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Applications received after the deadline will not be considered.

Applications must be sent to the following address:

| Ministero dello sviluppo economico |
| --- |
| Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche |
| Divisione VI |
| Via Molise 2 |
| 00187 Roma |
| ITALIA |

Ministero dello sviluppo economico

Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche

Divisione VI

Via Molise 2

00187 Roma

ITALIA

Applications may also be submitted by e-mail to the following certified e-mail address: ene.rme.div6@pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it The requisite documents must be submitted in electronic format with the digital signature of a legal representative of the applicant company.

In accordance with point 2 of Annex A to Prime Ministerial Decree No 22 of 22 December 2010, the overall duration of the procedure for granting exploration licences must not exceed 180 days.

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/6

---

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS

(2015/C 11/05)

By means of Decision No 444/14/COL of 22 October 2014, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice. The Norwegian authorities have been informed by means of a copy of the Decision.

By means of this notice, the EFTA Surveillance Authority invites the EFTA States, EU Member States and interested parties to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month of the date of publication to:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| Registry |
| Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The comments will be communicated to the Norwegian authorities. The identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be withheld following a request in writing stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

Following several complaints and market information, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (the Authority) investigated alleged State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS, a professional football club. The Authority subsequently sent two requests for information to which the Norwegian authorities have replied.

Description of the measure

By way of an agreement dated 28 November 2006, the municipality of Sandefjord transferred two plots of land in the Pindsle area free of charge to subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The land in question (zoned for agricultural use) had previously been acquired by the municipality for NOK 3,7 million and then rezoned for stadium and business use.

According to the agreement, Sandefjord Fotball AS was obliged to build a football stadium (at an estimated cost of around NOK 110 million) on part of the land, and could sell the other part to help finance the construction. Shortly thereafter, Sandefjord Fotball AS sold its subsidiary owning this second part of the land to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. No valuation of the company was undertaken prior to the sale.

The agreement also contained a number of further obligations. In particular, Sandefjord Fotball AS agreed to carry out road works at the stadium site (at a cost of approx. NOK 6,5 million) and to cover costs in relation to the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million).

The new stadium was completed in July 2007 at a total construction cost of NOK 100 million. In addition to the football pitch and stands, it contains a number of other facilities, including an athletics track, a fitness centre and meeting rooms. These are rented out free of charge to other (mainly amateur sport) organisations.

On 9 June 2009, Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the company owning the stadium and adjacent business properties to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 15 million. The price was based on an expert report, which was required as several individuals held board positions and shareholdings in both the club and Pindsle Property AS. Following the sale, Sandefjord Fotball AS has been paying annual rent of NOK 3 million plus 30 % of the value of ticket sales for the use of the stadium. According to the Norwegian authorities, the rent level corresponds to what other football clubs in Norway pay for stadium use.

Comments by the Norwegian authorities

According to the Norwegian authorities, the agreement of 28 November 2006 by which the plots of land were transferred obliged Sandefjord Fotball AS to build the stadium at an estimated cost that vastly exceeded the value of the land. Therefore the transfer of land could not result in the granting of an economic advantage to Sandefjord Fotball AS.

Regarding the value of the two plots of land in question, the Norwegian authorities argue that the land on which the stadium is located does not have any market value as its zoning includes the use as a football stadium. This means that any development of the land must include the construction of a football stadium, implicating very important construction costs. No buyer except for the football club would thus be interested in the land.

Regarding the value of the other plot, the Norwegian authorities argue that the price of NOK 40 million paid by Pindsle Property AS does not reflect the market price, but was rather based on the financial requirements of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The owners of Pindsle Property AS were supporters of the football club and wanted to contribute to the stadium construction. The Norwegian authorities have provided a third-party expert valuation indicating a market price of around NOK 15 million.

Finally, the Norwegian authorities argue that the further obligations contained in the agreement of 28 November 2006 in relation to road works and the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs, should be deducted from the value of the land.

The presence of State aid

Since the municipality of Sandefjord acquired land that was subsequently given free of charge to Sandefjord Fotball AS, state resources within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement are involved.

Sandefjord Fotball AS is a professional football club engaged in economic activities on several markets, including the transfer market for players as well as the markets for ticket sales, television rights, club memorabilia and sponsorship. It therefore qualifies as an undertaking. Since it was the only beneficiary, the measure is selective.

The municipality of Sandefjord did not follow the procedures set out in the Authority’s guidelines on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities. As a result, the Authority cannot exclude the presence of State aid based on the procedure followed by the municipality.

Regarding the transfer of the land on which the stadium was built, the Authority is not convinced that the obligation to build a football stadium can be considered to reduce the market price to zero. Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have not justified the sale at a price below the acquisition cost for the municipality.

Regarding the transfer of the land zoned for business use, the Authority considers that a market economy operator selling land would not have included a condition in relation to the construction or financing of a stadium in the contract. The Authority further considers at this stage that the price of NOK 40 million paid by Pindsle Property AS for the company owning the land provides a more reliable indication of market value than the ex post valuation report put forward by the Norwegian authorities.

Regarding the further costs incurred by Sandefjord Fotball AS pursuant to the agreement that the Norwegian authorities claim to be deductible from the market price, the Authority is not yet convinced that they reflect costs that the municipality would otherwise have to bear itself.

Finally, the Authority considers that the measure in question is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement as Sandefjord Fotball AS is engaged in economic activities on markets that cover several countries in the EEA. In particular, the club is active on the international transfer market, regularly recruiting players notably from other countries in the EEA.

The Authority therefore arrives at the preliminary conclusion that the transfer of land at issue resulted in the granting of State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS.

Compatibility of the aid

Under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, State aid to promote sport, including aid for sport infrastructure, may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the EEA to the extent that is contrary to the common interest.

However, the Norwegian authorities have not yet put forward any arguments regarding compatibility. Consequently, the Authority currently has doubts whether the transfer of land to Sandefjord Fotball AS could be deemed compatible under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice with regard to State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS. Interested parties are invited to submit their comments within one month from publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

In accordance with Article 14 of Protocol 3, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 444/14/COL

of 22 October 2014

opening the formal investigation procedure into aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS

(Norway)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’),

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Article 61,

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24,

HAVING REGARD to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Part II,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| (1) | Following complaints and market information submitted by concerned citizens, the Authority notified the Norwegian authorities of the State aid allegations on 31 October 2013 (Event No 686574). In the same correspondence, the Authority requested information on the alleged aid measure, which the Norwegian authorities provided on 29 November 2013 (Events No 691773 and 691774). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Following complaints and market information submitted by concerned citizens, the Authority notified the Norwegian authorities of the State aid allegations on 31 October 2013 (Event No 686574). In the same correspondence, the Authority requested information on the alleged aid measure, which the Norwegian authorities provided on 29 November 2013 (Events No 691773 and 691774).

| (2) | The Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities on 16 January 2014 (Event No 694963), which was provided on 14 February 2014 (Event No 699518). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities on 16 January 2014 (Event No 694963), which was provided on 14 February 2014 (Event No 699518).

2.   The alleged beneficiary

| (3) | Sandefjord Fotball AS is a football club organised as a limited-liability company. It was founded in 1998 based on an agreement between two football clubs in Sandefjord with the aim of establishing a professional team. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Sandefjord Fotball AS is a football club organised as a limited-liability company. It was founded in 1998 based on an agreement between two football clubs in Sandefjord with the aim of establishing a professional team.

| (4) | The club’s first team earned promotion to the highest Norwegian league in 2005. In the 2006 season it finished ninth and reached the national cup final, before being relegated the next year. Sandefjord Fotball played again in the highest division in 2009 — finishing eighth — and also in 2010. Since then, it has been playing in the 1st Division, the second-highest Norwegian league. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The club’s first team earned promotion to the highest Norwegian league in 2005. In the 2006 season it finished ninth and reached the national cup final, before being relegated the next year. Sandefjord Fotball played again in the highest division in 2009 — finishing eighth — and also in 2010. Since then, it has been playing in the 1st Division, the second-highest Norwegian league.

| (5) | Besides the professional (Elite) team, the club has an amateur and a junior football team. It also runs football summer schools and organises regional football competitions for young amateur players. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Besides the professional (Elite) team, the club has an amateur and a junior football team. It also runs football summer schools and organises regional football competitions for young amateur players.

| (6) | Sandefjord Fotball AS is owned by a number of individuals, either directly or through holding companies. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Sandefjord Fotball AS is owned by a number of individuals, either directly or through holding companies.

3.   The complaints and market information

| (7) | The complaints and market information received by the Authority are from individuals who requested anonymity. Their concerns are summarised in the following. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The complaints and market information received by the Authority are from individuals who requested anonymity. Their concerns are summarised in the following.

| (8) | In 2006, the municipality of Sandefjord transferred two plots of land free of charge to Sandefjord Fotball AS for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a new football stadium at Pindsle. The municipality had previously purchased these plots of land for a price of NOK 3,7 million. The land was at the time regulated as farmland. In preparation of the transfer to the football club, the municipality adopted a new zoning plan that allowed for the construction of a stadium and commercial use for one plot, and commercial use for the other plot. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In 2006, the municipality of Sandefjord transferred two plots of land free of charge to Sandefjord Fotball AS for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a new football stadium at Pindsle. The municipality had previously purchased these plots of land for a price of NOK 3,7 million. The land was at the time regulated as farmland. In preparation of the transfer to the football club, the municipality adopted a new zoning plan that allowed for the construction of a stadium and commercial use for one plot, and commercial use for the other plot.

| (9) | Sandefjord Fotball AS constructed the football stadium on the first plot. According to the complainants, it sold the second plot for approximately NOK 40 million to a commercial company (Pindsle Property AS) (1) in order to finance the stadium construction. Sandefjord Fotball later also sold the other plot of land, including the stadium and further business properties, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 15 million. The complainants indicate that at the time of these transactions, Sandefjord Fotball AS and Pindsle Property AS were controlled by the same individuals, who sat on the boards of both companies. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Sandefjord Fotball AS constructed the football stadium on the first plot. According to the complainants, it sold the second plot for approximately NOK 40 million to a commercial company (Pindsle Property AS) (1) in order to finance the stadium construction. Sandefjord Fotball later also sold the other plot of land, including the stadium and further business properties, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 15 million. The complainants indicate that at the time of these transactions, Sandefjord Fotball AS and Pindsle Property AS were controlled by the same individuals, who sat on the boards of both companies.

| (10) | The complainants argue that the transfer of land to Sandefjord Fotball AS did not take place at market terms and resulted in the granting of unlawful State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The complainants argue that the transfer of land to Sandefjord Fotball AS did not take place at market terms and resulted in the granting of unlawful State aid.

4.   Description of the measure

4.1.   Background

| (11) | Until 2007, Sandefjord Fotball used the municipal-owned stadium in Bugårdsparken for training purposes and matches. However, this stadium did not comply with the requirements of the Norwegian football federation for clubs playing in the highest division. An upgrade of the existing stadium was estimated to cost about NOK 30-40 million, which the municipality of Sandefjord was unwilling to invest. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Until 2007, Sandefjord Fotball used the municipal-owned stadium in Bugårdsparken for training purposes and matches. However, this stadium did not comply with the requirements of the Norwegian football federation for clubs playing in the highest division. An upgrade of the existing stadium was estimated to cost about NOK 30-40 million, which the municipality of Sandefjord was unwilling to invest.

4.2.   The construction of the new stadium

| (12) | In 2005, the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS discussed the possibility of constructing a new stadium. The municipality agreed to provide the necessary land, and Sandefjord Fotball AS to finance and run the stadium. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In 2005, the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS discussed the possibility of constructing a new stadium. The municipality agreed to provide the necessary land, and Sandefjord Fotball AS to finance and run the stadium.

| (13) | The municipality acquired several plots of land in the Pindsle area for a total of around NOK 3,7 million. The land was regulated as farmland at the time. The municipality’s decision of 6 September 2005 authorising the acquisition foresaw the land to be rezoned for business use and to require the construction of a stadium. In the new zoning plan, this land was split into two parts: plot 152/96 was zoned for mixed stadium and business use, and plot 152/97 for business use. By way of an agreement dated 28 November 2006, both plots of land were then transferred to two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS: plot 152/96 to Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS and plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The municipality acquired several plots of land in the Pindsle area for a total of around NOK 3,7 million. The land was regulated as farmland at the time. The municipality’s decision of 6 September 2005 authorising the acquisition foresaw the land to be rezoned for business use and to require the construction of a stadium. In the new zoning plan, this land was split into two parts: plot 152/96 was zoned for mixed stadium and business use, and plot 152/97 for business use. By way of an agreement dated 28 November 2006, both plots of land were then transferred to two wholly-owned subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS: plot 152/96 to Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS and plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS.

| (14) | According to the agreement, Sandefjord Fotball AS was responsible for organising the necessary financing to build the stadium. The construction costs were estimated at NOK 110 million for the project. Sandefjord Fotball AS would contribute NOK 70 million from its own funds and from outside investors, the sale of naming rights, etc. and take out a loan for the remaining NOK 40 million. The contribution of Sandefjord Fotball AS would partly be raised by the sale of the land zoned for business use (plot 152/97) to Pindsle Property AS. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

According to the agreement, Sandefjord Fotball AS was responsible for organising the necessary financing to build the stadium. The construction costs were estimated at NOK 110 million for the project. Sandefjord Fotball AS would contribute NOK 70 million from its own funds and from outside investors, the sale of naming rights, etc. and take out a loan for the remaining NOK 40 million. The contribution of Sandefjord Fotball AS would partly be raised by the sale of the land zoned for business use (plot 152/97) to Pindsle Property AS.

| (15) | Besides the construction of the stadium, the agreement contained a number of further obligations. In particular, Sandefjord Fotball AS agreed to carry out road works at the stadium site (at a cost of approx. NOK 6,5 million) and to cover costs in relation to the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Besides the construction of the stadium, the agreement contained a number of further obligations. In particular, Sandefjord Fotball AS agreed to carry out road works at the stadium site (at a cost of approx. NOK 6,5 million) and to cover costs in relation to the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million).

| (16) | Shortly after the signing of the agreement, the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, which owned plot 152/97, were acquired by Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. No valuation of the company was undertaken prior to the sale. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Shortly after the signing of the agreement, the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, which owned plot 152/97, were acquired by Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. No valuation of the company was undertaken prior to the sale.

| (17) | The new stadium was completed in July 2007 at a total construction cost of NOK 100 million. In addition to the football pitch and stands, it contains a number of other facilities, including an athletics track, a fitness centre and meeting rooms. These are rented out free of charge to other (mainly amateur sport) organisations. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The new stadium was completed in July 2007 at a total construction cost of NOK 100 million. In addition to the football pitch and stands, it contains a number of other facilities, including an athletics track, a fitness centre and meeting rooms. These are rented out free of charge to other (mainly amateur sport) organisations.

4.3.   Subsequent sale of the stadium

| (18) | In 2009, Sandefjord Fotball AS encountered financial difficulties. The club decided to raise funds by selling Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS (the company owning the stadium and adjacent properties on plot 152/96) to Pindsle Property AS. This time, a third-party company valuation was required under Norwegian law as several individuals held board positions and shareholdings in both the club and Pindsle Property AS. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

In 2009, Sandefjord Fotball AS encountered financial difficulties. The club decided to raise funds by selling Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS (the company owning the stadium and adjacent properties on plot 152/96) to Pindsle Property AS. This time, a third-party company valuation was required under Norwegian law as several individuals held board positions and shareholdings in both the club and Pindsle Property AS.

| (19) | The expert report of 6 April 2009 valued Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS at between NOK 14 million and NOK 16 million. The company was sold at a price of NOK 15 million on 9 June 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The expert report of 6 April 2009 valued Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS at between NOK 14 million and NOK 16 million. The company was sold at a price of NOK 15 million on 9 June 2009.

| (20) | Following the sale, Sandefjord Fotball AS has been paying annual rent of NOK 3 million plus 30 % of the value of ticket sales for the use of the stadium. According to the Norwegian authorities, the rent level corresponds to what other football clubs in Norway pay for stadium use. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Following the sale, Sandefjord Fotball AS has been paying annual rent of NOK 3 million plus 30 % of the value of ticket sales for the use of the stadium. According to the Norwegian authorities, the rent level corresponds to what other football clubs in Norway pay for stadium use.

5.   Comments by the Norwegian authorities

| (21) | The Norwegian authorities argue that the transactions described above do not result in the granting of State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The Norwegian authorities argue that the transactions described above do not result in the granting of State aid.

| (22) | According to the Norwegian authorities, the transfer of land by the municipality to Sandefjord Fotball AS has to be seen in the context of the wider agreement to build the stadium. The contract of 28 November 2006 by which the plots of land were transferred to Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS and Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS obliged Sandefjord Fotball AS to build the stadium, at an estimated cost (at the time) of NOK 110 million. In any event, the value of this obligation vastly exceeded the value of the two plots of land. Therefore the transfer of land could not result in the granting of an economic advantage to Sandefjord Fotball AS. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

According to the Norwegian authorities, the transfer of land by the municipality to Sandefjord Fotball AS has to be seen in the context of the wider agreement to build the stadium. The contract of 28 November 2006 by which the plots of land were transferred to Sandefjord Fotball Stadion AS and Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS obliged Sandefjord Fotball AS to build the stadium, at an estimated cost (at the time) of NOK 110 million. In any event, the value of this obligation vastly exceeded the value of the two plots of land. Therefore the transfer of land could not result in the granting of an economic advantage to Sandefjord Fotball AS.

| (23) | Regarding the value of the two plots of land in question, the Norwegian authorities argue that plot 152/96 does not have any market value as its zoning includes the use as a football stadium. This means that any development of the land must include the construction of a football stadium, implicating very important construction costs. Accordingly, no buyer except for the football club would have been interested in the land. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Regarding the value of the two plots of land in question, the Norwegian authorities argue that plot 152/96 does not have any market value as its zoning includes the use as a football stadium. This means that any development of the land must include the construction of a football stadium, implicating very important construction costs. Accordingly, no buyer except for the football club would have been interested in the land.

| (24) | Regarding plot 152/97, the Norwegian authorities argue that the price of NOK 40 million paid by Pindsle Property AS for the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS cannot be taken as an indication of market value. The agreed purchase price was not primarily based on the value of the land, but rather on the financial requirements of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The owners of Pindsle Property AS were supporters of the football club and wanted to contribute to the stadium construction. In order to determine the true market value of the land, the Norwegian authorities have commissioned a third-party expert valuation. The Authority understands that the valuation report of 5 February 2014 estimates the value of plot 152/97 at around NOK 15 million (based on 2006 data and excluding the cost of access infrastructure) (2). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Regarding plot 152/97, the Norwegian authorities argue that the price of NOK 40 million paid by Pindsle Property AS for the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS cannot be taken as an indication of market value. The agreed purchase price was not primarily based on the value of the land, but rather on the financial requirements of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The owners of Pindsle Property AS were supporters of the football club and wanted to contribute to the stadium construction. In order to determine the true market value of the land, the Norwegian authorities have commissioned a third-party expert valuation. The Authority understands that the valuation report of 5 February 2014 estimates the value of plot 152/97 at around NOK 15 million (based on 2006 data and excluding the cost of access infrastructure) (2).

| (25) | Finally, the Norwegian authorities also argue that in any event, the further obligations contained in the agreement of 28 November 2006 in relation to road works at the stadium site (at a cost of approx. NOK 6,5 million) and the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million) should be deducted from the value of the land. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Finally, the Norwegian authorities also argue that in any event, the further obligations contained in the agreement of 28 November 2006 in relation to road works at the stadium site (at a cost of approx. NOK 6,5 million) and the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million) should be deducted from the value of the land.

II.   ASSESSMENT

6.   The presence of State aid

| (26) | Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows
  ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement’. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows

‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement’.

| (27) | This implies that a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: the measure is granted by the State or through state resources, confers a selective economic advantage on an undertaking and is liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

This implies that a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: the measure is granted by the State or through state resources, confers a selective economic advantage on an undertaking and is liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition.

6.1.   State resources

| (28) | In order to qualify as State aid, the measure must be granted by the State or through state resources. The concept of the State does not only refer to the central government, but embraces all levels of the state administration (including municipalities) as well as public undertakings (3). |
| --- | --- |

(28)

In order to qualify as State aid, the measure must be granted by the State or through state resources. The concept of the State does not only refer to the central government, but embraces all levels of the state administration (including municipalities) as well as public undertakings (3).

| (29) | The land at issue was acquired by Sandefjord municipality and then transferred to two subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The Authority therefore concludes that the transfer of land involves state resources. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The land at issue was acquired by Sandefjord municipality and then transferred to two subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS. The Authority therefore concludes that the transfer of land involves state resources.

| (30) | Before the transaction, the municipality of Sandefjord changed the planning obligations for the land at issue: plot 152/96 was rezoned from farmland to mixed stadium and business use, and plot 152/97 from farmland to business use. Planning decisions are regulatory acts taken by public authorities. According to the case-law, such regulatory acts usually do not result in a transfer of state resources to undertakings (4). |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Before the transaction, the municipality of Sandefjord changed the planning obligations for the land at issue: plot 152/96 was rezoned from farmland to mixed stadium and business use, and plot 152/97 from farmland to business use. Planning decisions are regulatory acts taken by public authorities. According to the case-law, such regulatory acts usually do not result in a transfer of state resources to undertakings (4).

6.2.   Undertaking

| (31) | It is well-established case-law that undertakings are entities engaged in economic activities, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (5). Economic activities are activities consisting of offering goods or services on a market (6). |
| --- | --- |

(31)

It is well-established case-law that undertakings are entities engaged in economic activities, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (5). Economic activities are activities consisting of offering goods or services on a market (6).

| (32) | Sandefjord Fotball AS is a professional football club organised as a private company. It is active on several markets, including the transfer market for football players as well as the markets for ticket sales, television rights, club memorabilia and sponsorship. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Sandefjord Fotball AS is a professional football club organised as a private company. It is active on several markets, including the transfer market for football players as well as the markets for ticket sales, television rights, club memorabilia and sponsorship.

| (33) | The Authority therefore concludes that Sandefjord Fotball AS constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The Authority therefore concludes that Sandefjord Fotball AS constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

6.3.   Economic advantage

| (34) | A transfer of land to an undertaking may confer an economic advantage, in particular if it takes place at a price that is below the market price. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

A transfer of land to an undertaking may confer an economic advantage, in particular if it takes place at a price that is below the market price.

| (35) | The Authority guidelines on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (‘the Sale of Land Guidelines’) (7) set out two procedures that can be used to ensure that a sale of land does not involve State aid: public authorities can either carry out an open and unconditional bidding procedure, or obtain an independent ex ante expert valuation of the land. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The Authority guidelines on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (‘the Sale of Land Guidelines’) (7) set out two procedures that can be used to ensure that a sale of land does not involve State aid: public authorities can either carry out an open and unconditional bidding procedure, or obtain an independent ex ante expert valuation of the land.

| (36) | In the case at hand, the municipality of Sandefjord neither organised a bidding procedure nor obtained an ex ante expert valuation. As a result, the Authority cannot exclude the presence of State aid based on the procedure followed by the municipality. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

In the case at hand, the municipality of Sandefjord neither organised a bidding procedure nor obtained an ex ante expert valuation. As a result, the Authority cannot exclude the presence of State aid based on the procedure followed by the municipality.

| (37) | A transaction transferring state resources does not constitute State aid when it is carried out in line with normal market conditions so that it does not confer an advantage on an undertaking (8). This is known as the market economy operator test. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

A transaction transferring state resources does not constitute State aid when it is carried out in line with normal market conditions so that it does not confer an advantage on an undertaking (8). This is known as the market economy operator test.

6.3.1.   Transfer of plot 152/96

| (38) | At the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS, plot 152/96 was zoned for the construction of a football stadium and business use. According to the Norwegian authorities, this implies that any construction on the plot of land needs to include a stadium in order to receive planning permission. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

At the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS, plot 152/96 was zoned for the construction of a football stadium and business use. According to the Norwegian authorities, this implies that any construction on the plot of land needs to include a stadium in order to receive planning permission.

| (39) | The Authority notes that zoning obligations can influence the market price of land. However, the Authority is not convinced that the obligation to build a football stadium can be considered to reduce the market price to zero, in particular in case of a transaction aimed at assisting a football club in building a new stadium. In this context, the Authority also refers to section 2.2(c) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that when carrying out a valuation, ‘...[o]bligations whose fulfilment would at least partly be in the buyer’s own interest should be evaluated with that fact in mind.’ |
| --- | --- |

(39)

The Authority notes that zoning obligations can influence the market price of land. However, the Authority is not convinced that the obligation to build a football stadium can be considered to reduce the market price to zero, in particular in case of a transaction aimed at assisting a football club in building a new stadium. In this context, the Authority also refers to section 2.2(c) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that when carrying out a valuation, ‘...[o]bligations whose fulfilment would at least partly be in the buyer’s own interest should be evaluated with that fact in mind.’

| (40) | In addition, the Authority refers to section 2.2(d) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that in principle, ‘the market value should not be set below primary (9) costs during a period of at least three years after acquisition unless the independent valuer specifically identifies a general decline in market prices for land and buildings in the relevant market.’ In the case at hand, the municipality of Sandefjord acquired the land that was later divided into plots 152/96 and 152/97 for NOK 3,7 million. The Authority has not yet received any specific information justifying a sale at a price below the acquisition cost for the municipality. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

In addition, the Authority refers to section 2.2(d) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that in principle, ‘the market value should not be set below primary (9) costs during a period of at least three years after acquisition unless the independent valuer specifically identifies a general decline in market prices for land and buildings in the relevant market.’ In the case at hand, the municipality of Sandefjord acquired the land that was later divided into plots 152/96 and 152/97 for NOK 3,7 million. The Authority has not yet received any specific information justifying a sale at a price below the acquisition cost for the municipality.

| (41) | Based on the above, the Authority considers at this stage that the transfer of plot 152/96 free of charge conferred an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

Based on the above, the Authority considers at this stage that the transfer of plot 152/96 free of charge conferred an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS.

6.3.2.   Transfer of plot 152/97

| (42) | Plot 152/97 was zoned for business use at the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS. The Norwegian authorities argue that the transfer of plot 152/97 should be assessed in the context of the contract of 28 November 2006, which obliges the football club in particular to build the stadium in exchange for the land. Given that the estimated construction costs of the stadium exceed the value of the land, the transfer could not result in the granting of an economic advantage. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

Plot 152/97 was zoned for business use at the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS. The Norwegian authorities argue that the transfer of plot 152/97 should be assessed in the context of the contract of 28 November 2006, which obliges the football club in particular to build the stadium in exchange for the land. Given that the estimated construction costs of the stadium exceed the value of the land, the transfer could not result in the granting of an economic advantage.

| (43) | The Authority notes that plot 152/97 is zoned for business use. According to the planning rules, there is thus no obligation to build a stadium in relation to this plot of land. The contract of 28 November 2006, by which the land was transferred to Sandefjord Fotball AS, obliges Sandefjord Fotball AS to organise and finance the construction of the stadium. It foresees that plot 152/97 would be sold to finance part of the construction. The Authority considers that a market economy operator selling land would not have imposed such conditions in relation to the construction or financing of a stadium. The Authority therefore cannot exclude at this stage that the transfer of plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball AS conferred an economic advantage on the undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

The Authority notes that plot 152/97 is zoned for business use. According to the planning rules, there is thus no obligation to build a stadium in relation to this plot of land. The contract of 28 November 2006, by which the land was transferred to Sandefjord Fotball AS, obliges Sandefjord Fotball AS to organise and finance the construction of the stadium. It foresees that plot 152/97 would be sold to finance part of the construction. The Authority considers that a market economy operator selling land would not have imposed such conditions in relation to the construction or financing of a stadium. The Authority therefore cannot exclude at this stage that the transfer of plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball AS conferred an economic advantage on the undertaking.

| (44) | The Authority further notes that shortly after the transfer, Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, the company owning plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. Pindsle Property AS is a private company, and was not part of the same group as Sandefjord Fotball AS at the time of the transaction. The sale thus took place between two independent companies (10). |
| --- | --- |

(44)

The Authority further notes that shortly after the transfer, Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, the company owning plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million. Pindsle Property AS is a private company, and was not part of the same group as Sandefjord Fotball AS at the time of the transaction. The sale thus took place between two independent companies (10).

| (45) | The Norwegian authorities argue that this transaction did not reflect market price due to the motives of the owners of Pindsle Property AS, who wanted to provide Sandefjord Fotball AS with sufficient funds to enable the construction of the stadium. The Authority, however, has not received any evidence showing that the acquisition of Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS had been authorised by the board and/or the owners of Pindsle Property AS at an allegedly inflated price in order to favour the football club. The Authority further understands that according to Norwegian company law, the board of a private company has to act in the best interest of the company. The Norwegian authorities have not explained how the allegedly inflated purchase price served the best interest of Pindsle Property AS. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

The Norwegian authorities argue that this transaction did not reflect market price due to the motives of the owners of Pindsle Property AS, who wanted to provide Sandefjord Fotball AS with sufficient funds to enable the construction of the stadium. The Authority, however, has not received any evidence showing that the acquisition of Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS had been authorised by the board and/or the owners of Pindsle Property AS at an allegedly inflated price in order to favour the football club. The Authority further understands that according to Norwegian company law, the board of a private company has to act in the best interest of the company. The Norwegian authorities have not explained how the allegedly inflated purchase price served the best interest of Pindsle Property AS.

| (46) | Based on the above, the Authority considers at this stage that the sale of Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, whose principal asset was plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million shows the market value of the land. Given that there was an actual market transaction that took place shortly after the transfer of the land to Sandefjord Fotball AS, it is a more reliable indication of market value than the valuation report of 5 February 2014 put forward by the Norwegian authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

Based on the above, the Authority considers at this stage that the sale of Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, whose principal asset was plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million shows the market value of the land. Given that there was an actual market transaction that took place shortly after the transfer of the land to Sandefjord Fotball AS, it is a more reliable indication of market value than the valuation report of 5 February 2014 put forward by the Norwegian authorities.

| (47) | The Norwegian authorities further argue that the cost of carrying out road works at the stadium site (approx. NOK 6,5 million) and the costs in relation to the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million) that form part of the obligations of Sandefjord Fotball AS according to the contract of 28 November 2006 should be deducted from the value of the land. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The Norwegian authorities further argue that the cost of carrying out road works at the stadium site (approx. NOK 6,5 million) and the costs in relation to the discontinued use of the old stadium, including repairs (together approx. NOK 2,6 million) that form part of the obligations of Sandefjord Fotball AS according to the contract of 28 November 2006 should be deducted from the value of the land.

| (48) | The Authority considers that for such costs to be taken into account, they have to reflect costs that the municipality would otherwise have to bear itself, and not the developer of the land. For instance, road works that a developer is required to undertake under planning regulations cannot be taken into account. Similarly, repairs that a user of a municipal stadium would normally be obliged to carry out at the end of its rental contract should not be taken into account either. Based on the information received so far, the Authority questions whether any of these obligations contained in the contract of 28 November 2006 should be deducted from the value of the land. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The Authority considers that for such costs to be taken into account, they have to reflect costs that the municipality would otherwise have to bear itself, and not the developer of the land. For instance, road works that a developer is required to undertake under planning regulations cannot be taken into account. Similarly, repairs that a user of a municipal stadium would normally be obliged to carry out at the end of its rental contract should not be taken into account either. Based on the information received so far, the Authority questions whether any of these obligations contained in the contract of 28 November 2006 should be deducted from the value of the land.

| (49) | Based on the foregoing, the Authority currently considers that the measure at stake confers an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

Based on the foregoing, the Authority currently considers that the measure at stake confers an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS.

6.4.   Selectivity

| (50) | The alleged State aid results from a transaction between the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS. It represents a selective measure within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, in the sense that it only concerns one particular undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

The alleged State aid results from a transaction between the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS. It represents a selective measure within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, in the sense that it only concerns one particular undertaking.

6.5.   Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

| (51) | According to the case-law regarding effect on trade and distortion of competition, the Authority ‘[i]s required, not to establish that such aid has a real effect on trade [...] and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’ (11). |
| --- | --- |

(51)

According to the case-law regarding effect on trade and distortion of competition, the Authority ‘[i]s required, not to establish that such aid has a real effect on trade [...] and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’ (11).

| (52) | The mere fact that aid strengthens an undertaking’s position compared to that of other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is enough to conclude that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement (12). |
| --- | --- |

(52)

The mere fact that aid strengthens an undertaking’s position compared to that of other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is enough to conclude that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement (12).

| (53) | In 2006, Sandefjord Fotball’s professional team was playing in the highest Norwegian division, with the possibility of qualifying for European championships. Moreover, professional football clubs deploy economic activities in several markets other than participating in football competitions, such as the transfer market for professional players, publicity, sponsorship, merchandising or media coverage. Aid to a professional football club strengthens its position on each of those markets, most of which cover several countries in the EEA. As regards the market for the transfer of players, Sandefjord Fotball AS was at the time — and still is today — active on the international transfer market, regularly recruiting players notably from other countries in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

In 2006, Sandefjord Fotball’s professional team was playing in the highest Norwegian division, with the possibility of qualifying for European championships. Moreover, professional football clubs deploy economic activities in several markets other than participating in football competitions, such as the transfer market for professional players, publicity, sponsorship, merchandising or media coverage. Aid to a professional football club strengthens its position on each of those markets, most of which cover several countries in the EEA. As regards the market for the transfer of players, Sandefjord Fotball AS was at the time — and still is today — active on the international transfer market, regularly recruiting players notably from other countries in the EEA.

| (54) | The Authority therefore considers that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

The Authority therefore considers that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.

6.6.   Conclusion

| (55) | Based on the above, the Authority comes to the preliminary conclusion that the measure at stake fulfils all the conditions to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Based on the above, the Authority comes to the preliminary conclusion that the measure at stake fulfils all the conditions to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

7.   Compatibility

| (56) | Should the measure assessed above involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, the Authority must assess whether the aid can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. According to the case-law, it is up to the Contracting Party concerned to invoke possible grounds of compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions for such compatibility are met (13). |
| --- | --- |

(56)

Should the measure assessed above involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, the Authority must assess whether the aid can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. According to the case-law, it is up to the Contracting Party concerned to invoke possible grounds of compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions for such compatibility are met (13).

| (57) | The Authority notes that aid to promote sport, including aid to sport infrastructure, can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under certain conditions, as is illustrated notably by the General Block Exemption Regulation (14) and the decisional practice (15) of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

The Authority notes that aid to promote sport, including aid to sport infrastructure, can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under certain conditions, as is illustrated notably by the General Block Exemption Regulation (14) and the decisional practice (15) of the European Commission.

| (58) | However, the Norwegian authorities have not yet put forward any arguments regarding compatibility. The Authority therefore has doubts at this stage whether the measure could be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

However, the Norwegian authorities have not yet put forward any arguments regarding compatibility. The Authority therefore has doubts at this stage whether the measure could be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

8.   Conclusion

| (59) | Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities at this stage of the procedure, the Authority is of the preliminary view that the measure at hand constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and has doubts on whether it is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities at this stage of the procedure, the Authority is of the preliminary view that the measure at hand constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and has doubts on whether it is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (60) | Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority opens the formal investigation procedure. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measure in question does not constitute State aid or is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority opens the formal investigation procedure. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measure in question does not constitute State aid or is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (61) | In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this decision. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this decision.

| (62) | The Authority also requests the Norwegian authorities to provide, within one month of receipt of this decision, all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the nature and compatibility of the measure covered by this decision. |
| --- | --- |

(62)

The Authority also requests the Norwegian authorities to provide, within one month of receipt of this decision, all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the nature and compatibility of the measure covered by this decision.

| (63) | The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this decision to the potential recipient of the aid immediately. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this decision to the potential recipient of the aid immediately.

| (64) | The Authority reminds the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted will have to be recovered, unless (exceptionally) this recovery would be contrary to a general principal of EEA law, |
| --- | --- |

(64)

The Authority reminds the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted will have to be recovered, unless (exceptionally) this recovery would be contrary to a general principal of EEA law,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I and Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3 is opened into the potential aid measure implemented by the Norwegian authorities, which is the transfer of land from the municipality of Sandefjord to Sandefjord Fotball AS.

Article 2

The Norwegian authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure by 24 November 2014.

Article 3

The Norwegian authorities are requested to provide by 24 November, all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of

| — | the market price of the two plots of land at issue in line with the reasoning in section 6.3 above, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the market price of the two plots of land at issue in line with the reasoning in section 6.3 above, and

| — | the compatibility of the aid measure. |
| --- | --- |

—

the compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English language version of this Decision is authentic.

Decision made in Brussels, on 22 October 2014.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Oda Helen SLETNES

President

Helga JÓNSDÓTTIR

College Member

---

(1)  Pindsle Eindomsutvikling AS, including its subsidiaries Pindsle Stadion AS and Arena Næring AS. It will be called Pindsle Property AS in the following.

1

(2)  The valuation report estimates the combined value of plots 152/96 and 152/97 at NOK 31 million. The NOK 15 million results from apportioning this estimate according to the respective size of the two plots.

2

(3)  Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17), incorporated at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

3

(4)  Case C-379/98 Preussen Elektra v Schleswag EU:C:2001:160, paragraphs 59-60. See also the Commission’s answer to the parliamentary question P-2491/02 (OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 87).

4

Preussen Elektra

Schleswag

(5)  Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v Macroton EU:C:1991:161, paragraphs 21-2; Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-180/98 Pavlov and Others EU:C:2000:428; and Case E-5/07 Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. p. 61, paragraph 78.

5

Höfner and Elser

Macroton

Pavlov and Others

Private Barnehagers Landsforbund

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(6)  Case C-222/04 Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA EU:C:2006:8, paragraph 108.

6

Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze

Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA

(7)  Authority guidelines on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, adopted on 17 November 1999. Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/

7

(8)  Case C-39/94 SFEI and Others EU:C:1996:285, paragraphs 60-61.

8

SFEI and Others

(9)  I.e. the acquisition costs incurred by the public authority in question.

9

(10)  This is further shown by the absence of an independent expert valuation, which is required under Norwegian company law for transactions between companies in the same group.

10

(11)  Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission EU:C:2004:234, paragraph 44.

11

Italy

Commission

(12)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission EU:C:1980:209, paragraphs 11-12 and Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04, E-7/04 Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 117, paragraph 94.

12

Philip Morris Holland BV

Commission

Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(13)  Case C-364/90 Italy v Commission EU:C:1993:157, paragraph 20.

13

Italy

Commission

(14)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1), incorporated at point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

14

(15)  See e.g. Commission Decision in case SA.37109 (2013/N), Football stadiums in Flanders (OJ C 69, 7.3.2014, p. 1-28).

15

Football stadiums in Flanders

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/16

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 4 September 2014 in the case of Wow air ehf. v Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf.

(Case E-18/14)

(2015/C 11/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 4 September 2014 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 September 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Wow air ehf. v Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority), Isavia ohf. and Icelandair ehf., on the following questions:

| 1. | Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, of 18 January 1993, on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, oblige the Member States to ensure that a coordinator appointed under the provisions of the Regulation is, as regards the execution of his tasks, granted independent administrative power under domestic legislation as part of the executive of the Member State, or does the Member State have discretion to decide the status of the coordinator under domestic legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, of 18 January 1993, on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, oblige the Member States to ensure that a coordinator appointed under the provisions of the Regulation is, as regards the execution of his tasks, granted independent administrative power under domestic legislation as part of the executive of the Member State, or does the Member State have discretion to decide the status of the coordinator under domestic legislation?

| 2. | Is it assumed, in the instructions on the handling of complaints concerning the allocation of slots in Article 8(7) and (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, that all complaints, including complaints based on competition considerations, will be subject to the procedure prescribed therein, or is recital 15 of the preamble to the Regulation to be understood as meaning that the Regulation is to be applied without prejudice to the competition rules of the Treaty, in particular Articles 85 and 86, in such a way that complaints based on competition considerations shall be subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the competition authorities in the relevant Member State and are therefore to be submitted directly to them? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it assumed, in the instructions on the handling of complaints concerning the allocation of slots in Article 8(7) and (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, that all complaints, including complaints based on competition considerations, will be subject to the procedure prescribed therein, or is recital 15 of the preamble to the Regulation to be understood as meaning that the Regulation is to be applied without prejudice to the competition rules of the Treaty, in particular Articles 85 and 86, in such a way that complaints based on competition considerations shall be subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the competition authorities in the relevant Member State and are therefore to be submitted directly to them?

| 3. | If the competition authority of a Member State issues instructions on the basis of domestic competition legislation, and with reference to Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, with the intention of encouraging competition, is it assumed in the Regulation that these instructions will be issued to the managing body of an airport/competent authority or should these instructions be issued to the coordinator? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the competition authority of a Member State issues instructions on the basis of domestic competition legislation, and with reference to Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, with the intention of encouraging competition, is it assumed in the Regulation that these instructions will be issued to the managing body of an airport/competent authority or should these instructions be issued to the coordinator?

---

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/17

---

Action brought on 10 November 2014 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-22/14)

(2015/C 11/07)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 November 2014 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively DB Schenker), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, N-0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Annul ESA’s decision of 9 September 2014 in Case No 75697 (DB Schenker); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul ESA’s decision of 9 September 2014 in Case No 75697 (DB Schenker);

| 2. | Order ESA and any intervener to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order ESA and any intervener to bear the costs.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The applicants, Schenker North AB and Schenker Privpak AB, both established in Sweden, and Schenker Privpak AS, established in Norway, are part of the DB Schenker group. The group is a global freight forwarding and logistics undertaking owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants, Schenker North AB and Schenker Privpak AB, both established in Sweden, and Schenker Privpak AS, established in Norway, are part of the DB Schenker group. The group is a global freight forwarding and logistics undertaking owned by Deutsche Bahn AG.

| — | By its judgment in Case E-5/13 DB Schenker v ESA on 7 July 2014, the EFTA Court annulled ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refused full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refused to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL. |
| --- | --- |

—

By its judgment in Case E-5/13 DB Schenker v ESA on 7 July 2014, the EFTA Court annulled ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refused full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refused to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL.

| — | On 17 July 2014, DB Schenker received a letter by e-mail from ESA informing them that ESA had again decided to refuse DB Schenker access to the contested documents. DB Schenker was invited to submit a confirmatory application if it wanted ESA to reconsider its position. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 17 July 2014, DB Schenker received a letter by e-mail from ESA informing them that ESA had again decided to refuse DB Schenker access to the contested documents. DB Schenker was invited to submit a confirmatory application if it wanted ESA to reconsider its position.

| — | On 27 August 2014, DB Schenker sent a confirmatory application to ESA. On 9 September 2014 ESA sent an e-mail to DB Schenker containing a copy of the decision, which again refused DB Schenker full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to the same documents, i.e. the documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), and the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL. DB Schenker seeks to annul this decision under Article 36 SCA. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 27 August 2014, DB Schenker sent a confirmatory application to ESA. On 9 September 2014 ESA sent an e-mail to DB Schenker containing a copy of the decision, which again refused DB Schenker full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to the same documents, i.e. the documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), and the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL. DB Schenker seeks to annul this decision under Article 36 SCA.

The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

| — | infringed the commercial interests exception in Article 4(4) RAD (2012) and the professional secrecy obligation in Article 122 EEA, Article 14(4) SCA and Article 28(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 SCA, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012, |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed the commercial interests exception in Article 4(4) RAD (2012) and the professional secrecy obligation in Article 122 EEA, Article 14(4) SCA and Article 28(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 SCA, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012,

| — | infringed the overriding public interest exception in Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed the overriding public interest exception in Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012.

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 15.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/18

---

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2015/C 11/08)

This publication confers the right to oppose the application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

AMENDMENT APPLICATION

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
   (2)

AMENDMENT APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 9

‘Canard à Foie Gras du Sud-Ouest (Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord, Quercy)’

EC No: FR-PGI-0105-1000-25.5.2012

PGI ( X ) PDO ( )

1.   Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2.   Type of amendment(s)

—

—

—

—

3.   Amendment(s)

The group wished to amend its product specification firstly in order to clarify and explain certain points (particularly to take account of the specific characteristics of small-scale operators, developments in the ways products are presented to consumers and the ways in which foie gras is sold in traditional markets, which continue to reflect the rural, gastronomic culture of the South-West of France) as part of a progressive approach and, secondly, to take account of technical advances in the sector since the product was registered as a PGI in 2000.

3.1.   Product description

The following amendments have been made:

| 1. | A description of the whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass has been added.
  Traditionally sold in the foie gras markets of the South-West (markets — known as marchés au gras — specialised in the sale of duck and geese reared for foie gras production and cuts from those animals), the various presentation forms of whole duck have been added.
  These forms correspond to the whole slaughtered animal and to different degrees of evisceration, from which the cuts and offal referred to in the 2000 product specification (raw or processed products) are derived.
  The whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass are presented either fresh or frozen/deep-frozen.
  Of the entrails or offal, only the liver, heart and gizzard can be sold separately under the PGI.
  The group chose to retain the list of the pieces of meat and offal referred to in the specification for the registered PGI, in keeping with the history and reputation of fattened duck products traditionally sold in the South-West. The group chose not to widen the scope of the PGI to include non-traditional cuts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A description of the whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass has been added.

Traditionally sold in the foie gras markets of the South-West (markets — known as marchés au gras — specialised in the sale of duck and geese reared for foie gras production and cuts from those animals), the various presentation forms of whole duck have been added.

These forms correspond to the whole slaughtered animal and to different degrees of evisceration, from which the cuts and offal referred to in the 2000 product specification (raw or processed products) are derived.

The whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass are presented either fresh or frozen/deep-frozen.

Of the entrails or offal, only the liver, heart and gizzard can be sold separately under the PGI.

The group chose to retain the list of the pieces of meat and offal referred to in the specification for the registered PGI, in keeping with the history and reputation of fattened duck products traditionally sold in the South-West. The group chose not to widen the scope of the PGI to include non-traditional cuts.

| 2. | Addition of presentation in the form of secondary cuts for all products except whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcasses.
  The idea is to enable the product to be sold to the end consumer in portions.
  Moreover, the Single Document explains that the product can be presented in preserved, semi-preserved, frozen or deep-frozen form. It involves one point of the product specification in force. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Addition of presentation in the form of secondary cuts for all products except whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcasses.

The idea is to enable the product to be sold to the end consumer in portions.

Moreover, the Single Document explains that the product can be presented in preserved, semi-preserved, frozen or deep-frozen form. It involves one point of the product specification in force.

| 3. | Addition of the presentation of raw foie gras in seasoned form.
  The idea is to offer a ‘ready-to-cook’ product. Raw foie gras sold in seasoned form refers to the product as it is prepared before it is processed further as a PGI. The seasoning is defined the same way for the seasoned raw product as for processing: ‘Salt, nitrite curing salt, sugar, spices and herbs, spirits, liqueur wine, wine, truffles (Tuber melanosporum), ascorbic acid or sodium ascorbate. Seasoning is limited to 4 % of the weight of the preparation, with a maximum 2 g of sucrose per kg of preparation’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Addition of the presentation of raw foie gras in seasoned form.

The idea is to offer a ‘ready-to-cook’ product. Raw foie gras sold in seasoned form refers to the product as it is prepared before it is processed further as a PGI. The seasoning is defined the same way for the seasoned raw product as for processing: ‘Salt, nitrite curing salt, sugar, spices and herbs, spirits, liqueur wine, wine, truffles (Tuber melanosporum), ascorbic acid or sodium ascorbate. Seasoning is limited to 4 % of the weight of the preparation, with a maximum 2 g of sucrose per kg of preparation’.

| 4. | Addition of the possibility to present raw foie gras in deveined form. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Addition of the possibility to present raw foie gras in deveined form.

| 5. | Definition of magret (fillet of duck breast) trimming. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Definition of magret (fillet of duck breast) trimming.

| 6. | Clarification regarding dried and smoked magret in the product specification and Single Document: in practice, magret is always dried, but it may also be smoked. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Clarification regarding dried and smoked magret in the product specification and Single Document: in practice, magret is always dried, but it may also be smoked.

3.2.   Proof of origin

The tables have been updated to reflect the changes made in the chapter ‘Method of production’ and in the regulations in force. The content of a number of documents has been clarified.

The obligation to keep stock records for each site (see Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (3)) has been added.

The concept of a ‘lot’ has been defined.

3.3.   Method of production

This section has undergone numerous changes in form and content in the light of developments in PGI specifications at national and Community level.

The following changes have been made:

1.   Hatching

The requirements for hatching have been revised in order to clarify in this section that the ducks in question come from male ducks of the species Cairina moschata, known as Muscovy duck, or from a crossing of the species Cairina moschata × Anas Platyrhinchos (Muscovy male × common female duck), known as Mulard duck. This involved moving a pre-existing provision of the product specification rather than any actual change.

The specification points out that the parent lines used for these crossings must be selected according to the criteria set by the French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Association (SYSAAF).

2.   Rearing

| — | The product specification now refers to the possibility for ducklings to be transferred from one holding to another (before or after 42 days) within the geographical area. The idea is to reflect how the industry is organised and the current practice among operators, which involves using ‘initiated’ animals rather than 1-day-old ducklings. |
| --- | --- |

—

The product specification now refers to the possibility for ducklings to be transferred from one holding to another (before or after 42 days) within the geographical area. The idea is to reflect how the industry is organised and the current practice among operators, which involves using ‘initiated’ animals rather than 1-day-old ducklings.

| — | The difference in density within buildings and on runs between animals placed in the same building throughout the rearing stage and animals moved has been replaced by a reference to density within buildings according to the animals’ age. |
| --- | --- |

—

The difference in density within buildings and on runs between animals placed in the same building throughout the rearing stage and animals moved has been replaced by a reference to density within buildings according to the animals’ age.

| — | The concept of the split use of runs has been introduced to improve the quality management of these runs and to limit mud formation and its effects on the animal’s development (e.g. lameness). Such split use is limited to a maximum 50 % reduction in the surface area available to each duck at any one time. It can be combined with the rotation of runs, which aims to allow the use of another run, for the same reasons. In addition to these changes, the rest time for runs between two flocks has also been changed (12 weeks) and replaced by a maximum rest time for runs of 168 days per calendar year. |
| --- | --- |

—

The concept of the split use of runs has been introduced to improve the quality management of these runs and to limit mud formation and its effects on the animal’s development (e.g. lameness). Such split use is limited to a maximum 50 % reduction in the surface area available to each duck at any one time. It can be combined with the rotation of runs, which aims to allow the use of another run, for the same reasons. In addition to these changes, the rest time for runs between two flocks has also been changed (12 weeks) and replaced by a maximum rest time for runs of 168 days per calendar year.

3.   Formulation of feed ration

The feed ration given to animals before 42 days has been defined and the percentage of products derived from cereal grains limited from the 43rd day.

Feed materials have been classified in accordance with the terminology used in the EU regulations in force (Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials).

4.   Force-feeding

Several elements have been introduced:

| — | A minimum weight for force-fed animals in addition to their average weight. |
| --- | --- |

—

A minimum weight for force-fed animals in addition to their average weight.

| — | Continuous force-feeding for farm producers, i.e. force-feeding ducks of different ages simultaneously. |
| --- | --- |

—

Continuous force-feeding for farm producers, i.e. force-feeding ducks of different ages simultaneously.

| — | Sanitary requirements for force-feeding (cleaning, disinfecting, depopulation). |
| --- | --- |

—

Sanitary requirements for force-feeding (cleaning, disinfecting, depopulation).

| — | The duration of force-feeding has been reduced from 12 to 10 days minimum and 24 to 20 meals minimum. This reduction is thanks to the various scientific and technical improvements in selection, rearing and force-feeding, and does not affect the weight of the liver. The qualitative aim, particularly in terms of the melting rate, is to achieve a liver weighing around 550 g. This weight is achieved or even exceeded within 10-12 days. It is therefore better to be able to shorten the duration of force-feeding to allow operators to control liver size. Only the duration of force-feeding has been changed; there is no change in the duration of rearing, and the minimum liver size remains 350 g. |
| --- | --- |

—

The duration of force-feeding has been reduced from 12 to 10 days minimum and 24 to 20 meals minimum. This reduction is thanks to the various scientific and technical improvements in selection, rearing and force-feeding, and does not affect the weight of the liver. The qualitative aim, particularly in terms of the melting rate, is to achieve a liver weighing around 550 g. This weight is achieved or even exceeded within 10-12 days. It is therefore better to be able to shorten the duration of force-feeding to allow operators to control liver size. Only the duration of force-feeding has been changed; there is no change in the duration of rearing, and the minimum liver size remains 350 g.

| — | The type of maize used in force-feeding has been specified: grain and/or ground maize (wet mash). |
| --- | --- |

—

The type of maize used in force-feeding has been specified: grain and/or ground maize (wet mash).

5.   Slaughter

A minimum age at slaughter of 91 days for Mulard ducks and 92 days for Muscovy ducks has been introduced. These figures correspond to the sum of the minimum rearing period (81 or 82 days) and minimum force-feeding period (10 days).

6.   Provisions on carcasses

| — | Additions have been made to the section on evisceration in order to specify that the bile is removed during evisceration, which occurs when the carcass is warm or cold, and to define deveining. |
| --- | --- |

—

Additions have been made to the section on evisceration in order to specify that the bile is removed during evisceration, which occurs when the carcass is warm or cold, and to define deveining.

| — | Details on the cooling of livers and carcasses have also been given. |
| --- | --- |

—

Details on the cooling of livers and carcasses have also been given.

| — | The reference to the time-lag between evisceration and cutting (24 hours) and between slaughtering and freezing/deep-freezing (48 hours) has been replaced by specific hygiene rules for each operator. |
| --- | --- |

—

The reference to the time-lag between evisceration and cutting (24 hours) and between slaughtering and freezing/deep-freezing (48 hours) has been replaced by specific hygiene rules for each operator.

7.   Seasoning of foie gras

The seasoning of raw foie gras has been defined and limited to 4 % of the weight of the preparation.

8.   Processing of foie gras

| — | Details have been given on the presentation of raw foie gras intended for processing. Such foie gras may be presented whole, deveined, sliced or seasoned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Details have been given on the presentation of raw foie gras intended for processing. Such foie gras may be presented whole, deveined, sliced or seasoned.

| — | Three states of preservation have been set: chilled, frozen or deep-frozen. The conditions for using frozen or deep-frozen foie gras have been specified. |
| --- | --- |

—

Three states of preservation have been set: chilled, frozen or deep-frozen. The conditions for using frozen or deep-frozen foie gras have been specified.

| — | As with raw foie gras sold in seasoned form, the seasoning of foie gras intended for processing has been defined and limited to 4 % of the weight of the preparation. |
| --- | --- |

—

As with raw foie gras sold in seasoned form, the seasoning of foie gras intended for processing has been defined and limited to 4 % of the weight of the preparation.

| — | For the cooking of foie gras in a cloth (torchon), which in the past was similar to poaching, details on the stock used have been added, as this is a traditional cooking method. |
| --- | --- |

—

For the cooking of foie gras in a cloth (torchon), which in the past was similar to poaching, details on the stock used have been added, as this is a traditional cooking method.

| — | Details on ‘whole foie gras’ or ‘foie gras’ products have been added: the possibility of including just a single lobe in an item of packaging with a net weight of 250 g or less, the composition of the jelly coating, and the minimum truffle rate required to be allowed to mention this ingredient in the sales description. |
| --- | --- |

—

Details on ‘whole foie gras’ or ‘foie gras’ products have been added: the possibility of including just a single lobe in an item of packaging with a net weight of 250 g or less, the composition of the jelly coating, and the minimum truffle rate required to be allowed to mention this ingredient in the sales description.

| — | The possibility of using PGI foie gras already processed and cooked in a block of foie gras in a proportion of up to 10 % of the emulsion is explicitly stated. |
| --- | --- |

—

The possibility of using PGI foie gras already processed and cooked in a block of foie gras in a proportion of up to 10 % of the emulsion is explicitly stated.

| — | Details have been given on the conditions required to be allowed to indicate on the labelling the presence of bits, the composition of the jelly coating and the minimum truffle rate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Details have been given on the conditions required to be allowed to indicate on the labelling the presence of bits, the composition of the jelly coating and the minimum truffle rate.

9.   Processing of meat

A ban has been introduced on the use of salting in brine for processed meat:

| — | For dried and smoked magret:






  — | details on drying have been added, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

For dried and smoked magret:

—

details on drying have been added,

| — | ban on the use of flavourings, |
| --- | --- |

—

ban on the use of flavourings,

| — | for smoking, ban on processes such as washing, soaking or spraying with liquid smoke, |
| --- | --- |

—

for smoking, ban on processes such as washing, soaking or spraying with liquid smoke,

| — | a list of authorised ingredients has been added. |
| --- | --- |

—

a list of authorised ingredients has been added.

| — | For confit (preserved) meats:






  — | a reference has been added to the fact that the meat is cooked thoroughly in the case of packaging that does not undergo thermal stabilisation, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

For confit (preserved) meats:

—

a reference has been added to the fact that the meat is cooked thoroughly in the case of packaging that does not undergo thermal stabilisation,

| — | stabilisation by heat treatment (the second cooking process) affects only packaging for which it is technically possible, |
| --- | --- |

—

stabilisation by heat treatment (the second cooking process) affects only packaging for which it is technically possible,

| — | rules on the use of confit sales denominations according to the pieces contained in the packaging have been added. |
| --- | --- |

—

rules on the use of confit sales denominations according to the pieces contained in the packaging have been added.

3.4.   Labelling

In the light of developments in national regulations, the name of the certification bodies is no longer compulsory on the labelling of PGI products. The group has therefore decided to delete this requirement from the product specification.

The provisions on labelling have been revised to bring them into line with the registered denomination.

The use of collective labelling elements has been introduced, as have rules on the size of characters for the geographical name in the product’s sales denomination.

The collective labelling elements have been defined in a charter, which the group has made available to all operators.

3.5.   National requirements

In the light of developments in national legislation and regulations, the ‘National requirements’ heading now contains a table indicating the main items to be checked and the evaluation methods to be used.

3.6.   Other

Details of the group and certification bodies

The details of the group have been updated and those of the certification bodies added.

Type of product

The wording of the product classes has been updated in line with the terminology of the Community regulations in force. This wording is given in the chapter ‘Description of the product’.

Geographical area

There have been no changes to the definition of the geographical area of the PGI. Changes have been made, however, to its presentation: the list of cantons has been replaced by a list of the corresponding communes.

Specific rules on packaging

A reference to the fact that all operations from rearing to packaging must take place in the defined geographical area has been added. The obligation for packaging to occur in the geographical area therefore appears explicitly in the ‘Geographical area’ section of the product specification.

That was already implied by the following provisions in the product specification in force:

| — | page 34, ‘confit meats are packaged as a final product’, |
| --- | --- |

—

page 34, ‘confit meats are packaged as a final product’,

| — | pages 32 and 34 provide for the vacuum-packing of magret and foie gras, |
| --- | --- |

—

pages 32 and 34 provide for the vacuum-packing of magret and foie gras,

| — | page 32, the final heat treatment of foie gras preparations occurs after packaging. |
| --- | --- |

—

page 32, the final heat treatment of foie gras preparations occurs after packaging.

Packaging the product in the geographical area helps preserve its characteristics.

Duck offal and meat are fragile products that tend to become oxidised when exposed to the air. Packaging these products in the geographical area reduces the time between preparation and packaging and is one way to prevent them from deteriorating.

For processed foie gras and confit (preserved) products, packaging forms an integral part of the production process, since these products undergo final stabilisation heat treatment after packaging.

Finally, packaging these products in the geographical area makes it easier to trace and monitor them.

Changes in wording, particularly in the ‘Link’ section

This section has been reworded in order to demonstrate the link with the geographical area for the new products added and to bring it into line with current drafting requirements.

It is divided into the following three chapters, which have been amended:

| 1. | The chapter ‘Specificity of the geographical area’ has been rewritten and reorganised in order to better:






  — | locate the geographical area, the boundaries of which are set in relation to the surrounding geographical or administrative units, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The chapter ‘Specificity of the geographical area’ has been rewritten and reorganised in order to better:

—

locate the geographical area, the boundaries of which are set in relation to the surrounding geographical or administrative units,

| — | describe the defining natural factors of the geographical area, i.e. climate conditions, landscapes and the predominance of maize-growing. The soil type has not been retained, as the main reason for the development of maize-growing lies in the climate conditions of the geographical area. Exact figures have been added to this point, |
| --- | --- |

—

describe the defining natural factors of the geographical area, i.e. climate conditions, landscapes and the predominance of maize-growing. The soil type has not been retained, as the main reason for the development of maize-growing lies in the climate conditions of the geographical area. Exact figures have been added to this point,

| — | describe the human factors retracing the traditional characteristics of rearing in the South-West since the Middle Ages and the development of the sale of foie-gras duck there. |
| --- | --- |

—

describe the human factors retracing the traditional characteristics of rearing in the South-West since the Middle Ages and the development of the sale of foie-gras duck there.

| 2. | The chapter ‘Specificity of the product’ sets out the specific characteristics of all products covered by the PGI, particularly those of the product class introduced under the amendment application (whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The chapter ‘Specificity of the product’ sets out the specific characteristics of all products covered by the PGI, particularly those of the product class introduced under the amendment application (whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass).

| 3. | The chapter ‘Causal link’ has been rewritten in order to point out that it is based essentially on reputation, which is demonstrated using more specific elements. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The chapter ‘Causal link’ has been rewritten in order to point out that it is based essentially on reputation, which is demonstrated using more specific elements.

Traditional elements, such as the introduction of maize-growing in the region, the peasant-farming economy based on the rearing of fattened duck, and particular preservation techniques, have been retained but reorganised and clarified.

The causal link is now based on the following elements:

| — | the geographical area’s climate conditions are suited to maize-growing, |
| --- | --- |

—

the geographical area’s climate conditions are suited to maize-growing,

| — | maize was introduced to the region in the 16th century and soon became one of the main feed materials for poultry in general and duck in particular, |
| --- | --- |

—

maize was introduced to the region in the 16th century and soon became one of the main feed materials for poultry in general and duck in particular,

| — | the wide distribution of this cereal enabled farmers to specialise in the rearing of fattened duck and to develop specific know-how in intensive but gradual duck fattening (force-feeding), |
| --- | --- |

—

the wide distribution of this cereal enabled farmers to specialise in the rearing of fattened duck and to develop specific know-how in intensive but gradual duck fattening (force-feeding),

| — | this method of rearing fattened duck forms the basis of their specificity, which involves having not only a high fat rate but also good muscle development, |
| --- | --- |

—

this method of rearing fattened duck forms the basis of their specificity, which involves having not only a high fat rate but also good muscle development,

| — | the rise in this farming method was accompanied by the development of original preservation techniques (using duck fat (confisage) or aseptic canning (appertisation), |
| --- | --- |

—

the rise in this farming method was accompanied by the development of original preservation techniques (using duck fat (confisage) or aseptic canning (appertisation),

| — | these preservation techniques enabled the products to be sold on a wider scale by specialised sales firms, |
| --- | --- |

—

these preservation techniques enabled the products to be sold on a wider scale by specialised sales firms,

| — | the appearance of these firms helped develop the reputation of ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ not only in its own region, but also at national and even international level. |
| --- | --- |

—

the appearance of these firms helped develop the reputation of ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ not only in its own region, but also at national and even international level.

Numerous drafting changes have been made, including rewordings, clarifications, moving around paragraphs and deleting superfluous paragraphs.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
   (4)

‘Canard à Foie Gras du Sud-Ouest (Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord, Quercy)’

EC No: FR-PGI-0105-1000-25.5.2012

PGI ( X ) PDO ( )

1.   Name

‘Canard à Foie Gras du Sud-Ouest (Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord, Quercy)’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Member State or Third Country

France

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Type of product

Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal)

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

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

Description of the product to which the name in 1 applies

The ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ comes from the male Muscovy duck or male Mulard duck.

The ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ is reared in the open air (free-range) then force-fed from the age of 81 days for the Mulard duck and 82 days for the Muscovy duck.

The ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ is force-fed for 10 days minimum and 20 meals minimum.

It is then slaughtered and in some cases cut up and processed.

The skin and fat of the ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ is off-white to yellow in colour.

The various products derived from the ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ are the following:

| — | Fresh meat and offal: Whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass, foie gras, magret (fillet of duck breast), leg, aiguillette (a thin strip of flesh), heart, manchon (the thickest part of the wing), gizzard.
  A whole duck with the liver refers to a whole slaughtered, plucked and non-eviscerated duck.
  A whole duck without the liver refers to a slaughtered, plucked duck which has not been eviscerated but whose liver has been removed.
  An eviscerated carcass refers to a whole, slaughtered, plucked and fully eviscerated duck.
  Raw foie gras is supple and homogeneous in colour and does not present any lesions. It weighs at least 350 g and may be presented in seasoned form.
  The magret refers to fillets taken from the breast (not including the aiguillette muscle). Each magret weighs at least 300 g and is presented with the skin and subcutaneous fat covering it. The fat content (fat + skin/total weight) is between 25 % and 45 %. The magret is completely plucked and carefully trimmed. The trimming should be even and form a ring, with a small proportion of fat visible on the meat side.
  The leg refers to all the pieces of meat, skin and fat enveloping the femur, tibia and fibula. The two cuts must be made at the joints. The pieces should not present any bruising or scratching. They are fully plucked and carefully trimmed and the stubs have been removed properly.
  The aiguillette refers to the inner part of the pectoral muscle attached to the carcass. There is no sign of bruising and it is presented whole.
  The heart is presented whole, without any cuts and with the aorta removed.
  The manchon refers to the proximal phalanx of the wing. It is presented properly trimmed, without any fractures, splinters or bruising.
  The gizzard refers to the second digestive pocket of the duck, made up of a thick muscle, and is edible. It should be properly peeled on the inside and defatted on the outside and not contain any pieces of oesophagus.
  These products may be sold to the consumer fresh, frozen or deep-frozen.
  They may be presented as cuts, except for whole duck and the carcass. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fresh meat and offal: Whole duck (with or without the liver) and eviscerated carcass, foie gras, magret (fillet of duck breast), leg, aiguillette (a thin strip of flesh), heart, manchon (the thickest part of the wing), gizzard.

A whole duck with the liver refers to a whole slaughtered, plucked and non-eviscerated duck.

A whole duck without the liver refers to a slaughtered, plucked duck which has not been eviscerated but whose liver has been removed.

An eviscerated carcass refers to a whole, slaughtered, plucked and fully eviscerated duck.

Raw foie gras is supple and homogeneous in colour and does not present any lesions. It weighs at least 350 g and may be presented in seasoned form.

The magret refers to fillets taken from the breast (not including the aiguillette muscle). Each magret weighs at least 300 g and is presented with the skin and subcutaneous fat covering it. The fat content (fat + skin/total weight) is between 25 % and 45 %. The magret is completely plucked and carefully trimmed. The trimming should be even and form a ring, with a small proportion of fat visible on the meat side.

The leg refers to all the pieces of meat, skin and fat enveloping the femur, tibia and fibula. The two cuts must be made at the joints. The pieces should not present any bruising or scratching. They are fully plucked and carefully trimmed and the stubs have been removed properly.

The aiguillette refers to the inner part of the pectoral muscle attached to the carcass. There is no sign of bruising and it is presented whole.

The heart is presented whole, without any cuts and with the aorta removed.

The manchon refers to the proximal phalanx of the wing. It is presented properly trimmed, without any fractures, splinters or bruising.

The gizzard refers to the second digestive pocket of the duck, made up of a thick muscle, and is edible. It should be properly peeled on the inside and defatted on the outside and not contain any pieces of oesophagus.

These products may be sold to the consumer fresh, frozen or deep-frozen.

They may be presented as cuts, except for whole duck and the carcass.

| — | Meat products: whole foie gras, foie gras, block of foie gras (with or without bits), dried (or dried and smoked) magret, confit (the wing, leg, magret, manchon, gizzard).
  Whole foie gras is a preparation composed of a whole foie gras or one or more lobes of foie gras and a seasoning.
  Foie gras is a preparation composed of compressed bits of lobes of foie gras (any bit of the lobe of foie gras the weight of which, in the final product, is at least equal to 20 g) and a seasoning.
  A block of foie gras (with or without bits) is a preparation composed of reconstituted foie gras and a seasoning, with the possible addition of bits of foie gras.
  Dried (or dried and smoked) magret is prepared using the magret, cured with dry salt and dried (or dried and smoked), to which other ingredients may have been added.
  Confit is a preparation derived from cooking pieces of the meat of foie-gras duck, pre-cured in dry salt, in duck fat only. The only parts of the animal that can be used are the leg, the wing (with the magret and manchon attached), the magret, the manchon and the gizzard.
  These products may be sold to the consumer in preserved, semi-preserved (or half-cooked), frozen or deep-frozen form. They may be presented in the form of a secondary cut. |
| --- | --- |

—

Meat products: whole foie gras, foie gras, block of foie gras (with or without bits), dried (or dried and smoked) magret, confit (the wing, leg, magret, manchon, gizzard).

Whole foie gras is a preparation composed of a whole foie gras or one or more lobes of foie gras and a seasoning.

Foie gras is a preparation composed of compressed bits of lobes of foie gras (any bit of the lobe of foie gras the weight of which, in the final product, is at least equal to 20 g) and a seasoning.

A block of foie gras (with or without bits) is a preparation composed of reconstituted foie gras and a seasoning, with the possible addition of bits of foie gras.

Dried (or dried and smoked) magret is prepared using the magret, cured with dry salt and dried (or dried and smoked), to which other ingredients may have been added.

Confit is a preparation derived from cooking pieces of the meat of foie-gras duck, pre-cured in dry salt, in duck fat only. The only parts of the animal that can be used are the leg, the wing (with the magret and manchon attached), the magret, the manchon and the gizzard.

These products may be sold to the consumer in preserved, semi-preserved (or half-cooked), frozen or deep-frozen form. They may be presented in the form of a secondary cut.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

Raw materials (for processed products only)

Foie gras-based preparations (whole foie gras, foie gras, blocks of foie gras with or without bits) must be made from PGI foie gras.

Dried (or dried and smoked) magret must be made from PGI magret.

Confit is prepared using pieces of PGI meat pre-cured in dry salt and cooked in duck fat.

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

Feed (for products of animal origin only)

At least 50 % of the feed material for farmed ducks consists of cereal grains or their derived products and of legume seeds, up to 42 days. Then, until the animals are force-fed, at least 70 % consists of cereal grains or their derived products and of legume seeds, with a minimum 15 % maize and maximum 40 % wheat.

At least 95 % of the force-fed ration consists of maize harvested in the geographical area of the South-West. The ducks are force-fed on whole or ground maize for at least 10 days and at least 20 meals.

This practice is based on traditional customs. The introduction and cultivation of maize in the South-West formed the basis for the establishment of the foie-gras duck and goose sector, as it is a cereal with recognised properties for poultry-fattening.

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

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

The ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ is reared, force-fed, slaughtered and in some cases cut up and processed in the geographical area.

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

Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

Packaging the product in the geographical area helps preserve its characteristics.

Duck offal and meat are fragile products that tend to become oxidised when exposed to the air. Packaging these products in the geographical area reduces the time between preparation and packaging and is one way to prevent them from deteriorating.

For processed foie gras and confit (preserved) products, packaging forms an integral part of the production process, since these products undergo final stabilisation heat treatment after packaging.

Finally, packaging these products in the geographical area makes it easier to trace and monitor them.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

Specific rules concerning labelling

The labelling of the marketed product consists of:

| — | the name ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest (Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord, Quercy)’, |
| --- | --- |

—

the name ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest (Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord, Quercy)’,

| — | a description of the products in addition to one of the following geographical terms: Sud-Ouest, Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord or Quercy. In this case, the final product is derived from a duck reared, force-fed, slaughtered, cut up, prepared and packaged in the production areas referred to, |
| --- | --- |

—

a description of the products in addition to one of the following geographical terms: Sud-Ouest, Chalosse, Gascogne, Gers, Landes, Périgord or Quercy. In this case, the final product is derived from a duck reared, force-fed, slaughtered, cut up, prepared and packaged in the production areas referred to,

| — | the various labelling elements according to the collective charter in force, drawn up by the group and made available to all operators. Any change will be disseminated among all operators, as well as the inspection body and competent inspection authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

the various labelling elements according to the collective charter in force, drawn up by the group and made available to all operators. Any change will be disseminated among all operators, as well as the inspection body and competent inspection authorities.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Concise definition of the geographical area

The geographical area consists of the following regions, departments and/or cantons:

AQUITAINE (Dordogne, Gironde, Landes, Lot-et-Garonne, Pyrénées-Atlantiques),

MIDI-PYRÉNÉES (Lot, Tarn-et-Garonne, Gers, Hautes-Pyrénées, Haute-Garonne, Ariège, Tarn, Aveyron),

LIMOUSIN: Corrèze and the neighbouring cantons of the Haute-Vienne department: Saint-Mathieu, Chalus, Saint-Yrieix-la-Perche, Aude: the cantons of Castelnaudary Sud and Castelnaudary Nord, Salles, Belpech, Fanjeaux.

CHALOSSE consists of the following cantons of the Landes department: Pouillon, Montfort, Amou, Hagetmau, Saint-Sever.

GASCOGNE consists of the Gers, Landes and Hautes-Pyrénées departments and the Saint-Gaudens district (Haute-Garonne).

GERS corresponds to the Gers administrative department.

LANDES corresponds to the Landes administrative department.

PÉRIGORD consists of the Dordogne department, and the neighbouring cantons of the Haute-Vienne (Saint-Mathieu, Chalus, Saint-Yrieix-la-Perche), Corrèze (Lubersac, Juillac, Ayen, Larche, Brive-la-Gaillarde), Lot (Souillac, Payrac, Gourdon, Salviac, Cazals, Puy-l’Évêque) and Lot-et-Garonne departments (Fumel, Monflanquin, Villereal, Castillonnes, Lauzun, Duras).

QUERCY consists of the Lot department and the following cantons of the Tarn-et-Garonne department: Montaigu-de-Quercy, Bourg-de-Visa, Moissac, Lauzerte, Molières, Lafrançaise, Montauban, Montpezat-de-Quercy, Caussade, Négrepelisse, Monclar-de-Quercy, Villebrumier, Caylus and Saint-Antonin-Noble-Val.

5.   Link with the geographical area

Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

Specificity of the geographical area

(a)   Natural factors

Natural factors

The geographical area corresponds overall to the geological entity of the Aquitaine basin, a vast sedimentary basin formed in the secondary era, which takes up much of the South-West. It is bordered to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Pyrenees, to the east by a line between the Massif Central and the town of Castelnaudary and to the north by the administrative boundaries of the Poitou-Charentes region.

It is characterised by a succession of arable plains and hills and by the mildness of its semi-oceanic climate.

Temperatures are high, and significant rainfall occurs in summer. All parts of the geographical area record average rainfall above 900 mm (Source: Météo France for the period 1981-2010).

By virtue of these climate conditions, the geographical area is historically a region suited to maize-growing: ‘Maize is the most commonly grown secondary cereal, because it only needs water at a somewhat later stage. The South-West is the preferred region for this grain [...]. This is the only region that has the right heat and humidity conditions for growing maize’ (De Lavergne, M.L. (1860) Economie rurale de la France depuis 1789. Paris: Guillaumin et Cie et Librairie agricole de la maison rustique).

Economie rurale de la France depuis 1789. Paris: Guillaumin et Cie

(b)   Human factors

Human factors

Traditional rearing of ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ in the geographical area

Since the Middle Ages, peasant farming in the South-West has been dominated by smallholdings and sharecropping. The presence in farmyards of duck and geese for fattening has however been a characteristic feature of the farms of the South-West since that era.

Duck and goose rearing would become an important means of providing food for farmers and their families. Since the 16th century, it was also distinctive in that it was based on the distribution of maize, which, once it had been introduced to the South-West in the 16th century, had replaced millet and panic in the local diet of animals and, later, people.

Until the end of the 17th century, ducks would fatten themselves by eating as much maize as they wanted in a dark room. The development of the technique for force-feeding towards the end of the 18th century would change the way these animals were fattened, with the more intensive distribution of maize, either raw or cooked in the form of flour or pellets.

Long tradition of marketing ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ and its derived products

From the 17th century, this distinctive rearing method was followed by the development in the farms of the South-West of a specific method for preserving pieces of duck meat and offal cooked in fat, a method known as ‘confit’. The trade in products derived from ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ would witness even stronger growth at the end of the 18th century, with the invention of aseptic canning (appertisation) by Nicolas Appert, enabling the sale of processed products derived from the duck (foie gras and confit in particular) to be rationalised, in the form of preserves, and to reach new markets beyond the South-West.

appertisation

From the end of the 18th century, sales of whole or eviscerated fattened duck and raw foie gras grew with the introduction of markets set up exclusively for the direct sale of these products, which were held between the end of autumn and the beginning of spring.

To this day, these markets, known as marchés au gras, live on in many towns of the South-West, including Samatan (Gers), Seissan (Gers), Périgueux (Périgord), Mont de Marsan (Landes), Cahors (Quercy) and Monfort-en-Chalosse (Chalosse). These traditional markets allow producers to sell directly whole duck (with or without the liver), eviscerated carcasses, the various cuts from the duck, as well as its offal, including raw foie gras, gizzards and hearts.

marchés au gras

5.2.   Specificity of the product

Specificity of the product

The specificity of ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ lies in its high level of fattening, thanks to a specific rearing and feeding method based on the gradual fattening of the animals.

At the end of a long rearing period on outdoor runs lasting at least 81 days, the ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ is gradually fattened for at least 10 days with a ration that is at least 95 % maize-based.

The carcasses derived from this traditional finish have a skin and fat with an off-white to yellow colour and a high fat rate, which can be seen on all pieces of the duck and results in a 25-45 % fat rate for the magret and in animals of good conformation with cuts of a significant weight. For example, the minimum weight of magret is 300 g, that of foie gras 350 g.

Moreover, from the 18th century, there was growing awareness of the specificity of duck and goose foie gras among cooks, who would turn foie gras into a well-renowned product.

‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ also enjoys a long-standing reputation that extends well beyond the borders of the South-West and of France itself.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

The link to the origin of ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ is essentially based on the reputation of the product itself and of its derived products.

This reputation is primarily linked to the traditional, local use of maize to fatten the duck and geese.

By virtue of the geographical area’s favourable climate conditions, maize has been grown here since the 16th century, and it soon emerged as the main cereal for fattening ducks in particular. Numerous publications establish the link between this feeding practice and the product’s reputation: ‘so well-renowned throughout Europe, duck liver owes its advantage to this grain alone’ (Parmentier, M. (1785) Thesis awarded a prize on 25 August 1784 by the Royal Academy of Science, Literature and Fine Arts of Bordeaux. Bordeaux: Arnaud-Antoine Pallandre). The abbot Rozier also referred to this link in his tract on Agriculture in 1787: ‘poultry of all kinds [...] put on a lot of fat, and their meat acquires a fine, delicate taste, so the most widely esteemed poultry come from places where this grain is widely grown’.

Maize-growing enabled producers to specialise in the rearing of fattened duck and geese and to develop know-how based on the intensive distribution of this cereal and the gradual control of fattening. This know-how, combined with a long rearing period outdoors, thanks to the mild, temperate climate all year round, produces well-developed animals with a high fat rate. The distribution of maize during the fattening stage determines the colour of the skin and fat, according to the type of maize given (white maize or yellow maize).

Later, the reputation of ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ and of its derived products grew thanks to the use of original techniques for preserving the product (preserving in fat (confisage) and aseptic canning (appertisation)), which enabled the product to be marketed beyond the South-West, and regional and national marketing channels to be developed.

confisage

appertisation

Over time, numerous publications have attested to the reputation of foie gras. These include L’histoire de la vie privée des français by Aussy, published in 1787, which states that the reputation of Toulouse is based on duck foie gras, and the 1926 Larousse Ménager, which notes that ‘foie gras is used mainly to produce pâtés and terrines, in which some regions specialise. [...] The pâtés of Toulouse are made from duck liver and rival those of Strasbourg.’

L’histoire de la vie privée des français

Larousse Ménager

Moreover, the foie gras markets, known as marchés au gras, which were introduced in the geographical area at the end of the 18th century and live on to this day, are tangible proof of how well-rooted the production and marketing of these products have become, from the whole duck cooked at home to pre-cooked cuts and offal.

marchés au gras

Reference to publication of the specification

Reference to publication of the specification

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

5

https://www.inao.gouv.fr/fichier/CDCIGPCanardafoiegrasduSudOuestV3.pdf

---

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

1

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

2

(3)  OJ L 369, 23.12.2006, p. 1. Replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

3

(4)  Replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

4

(5)  See footnote 4.

5

---