# Official Journal C 459/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 459 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6120 December 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 459

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6120 December 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 459/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9070 — Eurocar/Vicentini) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 459/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9166 — Santander Group/Hyundai Motor Company Group/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 459/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9143 — CapMan/NH-Amundi/Green Investment Group/Cloud Snurran) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2018/C 459/04 | Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2018/C 459/05 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9158 — SoftBank/Toyota Motor Corporation/Monet Technologies JV) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 459/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9070 — Eurocar/Vicentini) (
  1
  )

1

1

2018/C 459/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9166 — Santander Group/Hyundai Motor Company Group/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2018/C 459/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9143 — CapMan/NH-Amundi/Green Investment Group/Cloud Snurran) (
  1
  )

1

2

2018/C 459/04

Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets) (
  1
  )

1

2

2018/C 459/05

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9158 — SoftBank/Toyota Motor Corporation/Monet Technologies JV) (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2018/C 459/06 | 2019 update of the allowances applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union | 4 |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 459/07 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |
| 2018/C 459/08 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 9 March 2018 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto — Rapporteur: Latvia | 6 |
| 2018/C 459/09 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto | 9 |
| 2018/C 459/10 | Summary of Commission Decision of 21 March 2018 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto) (notified under document number C(2018) 1709)
   (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2018/C 459/11 | Commission Implementing Decision of 11 December 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the name Gönci kajszibarack (PGI) | 24 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2018/C 459/12 | Special Report No 33/2018 — Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action | 37 |
| 2018/C 459/13 | Special Report No 35/2018 — Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed | 37 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2018/C 459/14 | Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 38 |
| 2018/C 459/15 | Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 40 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2018/C 459/06

2019 update of the allowances applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union

4

European Commission

2018/C 459/07

Euro exchange rates

5

2018/C 459/08

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 9 March 2018 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto — Rapporteur: Latvia

6

2018/C 459/09

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto

9

2018/C 459/10

Summary of Commission Decision of 21 March 2018 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto) (notified under document number C(2018) 1709)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document number C(2018) 1709)

1

10

2018/C 459/11

Commission Implementing Decision of 11 December 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to a product specification referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the name Gönci kajszibarack (PGI)

Official Journal of the European Union

24

Court of Auditors

2018/C 459/12

Special Report No 33/2018 — Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action

37

2018/C 459/13

Special Report No 35/2018 — Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed

37

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2018/C 459/14

Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

38

2018/C 459/15

Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

40

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2018/C 459/16 | Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2018 in Case E-10/17 — Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages) | 47 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 459/17 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis) (
  1
  ) | 48 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2018/C 459/16

Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2018 in Case E-10/17 — Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

(Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

47

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 459/17

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis) (
  1
  )

1

48

---

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

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9070 — Eurocar/Vicentini)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/01)

On 10 September 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9070. 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 32018M9070. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9166 — Santander Group/Hyundai Motor Company Group/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/02)

On 7 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9166. 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 32018M9166. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9143 — CapMan/NH-Amundi/Green Investment Group/Cloud Snurran)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/03)

On 10 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9143. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9143. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/2

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/04)

On 11 December 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

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

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+ 32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8864 — Vodafone/Certain Liberty Global Assets, to the following address:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9158 — SoftBank/Toyota Motor Corporation/Monet Technologies JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/05)

On 12 December 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9158. 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 32018M9158. 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

Council

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/4

---

2019 update of the allowances applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union

(2018/C 459/06)

In accordance with Article 19(6) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/1027 of 23 June 2015 concerning the rules applicable to experts on secondment to the General Secretariat of the Council and repealing Decision 2007/829/EC (1):

| 1. | From 1 January 2019, the daily allowance as referred to in Article 19 is set at EUR 35,13 and EUR 140,49. |
| --- | --- |

1.

From 1 January 2019, the daily allowance as referred to in Article 19 is set at EUR 35,13 and EUR 140,49.

| 2. | From 1 January 2019, the scale used to calculate reimbursements due on the basis of the distance between the place of recruitment and the place of secondment (in km) is as follows:






  Distance between the place of recruitment and the place of secondment (in km) | Amount (in EUR) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 0-150 | 0,00 |
| > 150 | 90,31 |
| > 300 | 160,54 |
| > 500 | 260,91 |
| > 800 | 421,46 |
| > 1 300 | 662,30 |
| > 2 000 | 792,77 |

2.

From 1 January 2019, the scale used to calculate reimbursements due on the basis of the distance between the place of recruitment and the place of secondment (in km) is as follows:

Distance between the place of recruitment and the place of secondment (in km)

Amount (in EUR)

0-150

0,00

> 150

90,31

> 300

160,54

> 500

260,91

> 800

421,46

> 1 300

662,30

> 2 000

792,77

---

(1)  OJ L 163, 30.6.2015, p. 40.

---

European Commission

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 December 2018

(2018/C 459/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1405 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4676 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90318 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3393 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1328 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,9375 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,765 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 322,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2833 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6655 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,0860 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5879 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5332 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9241 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6630 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5623 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 284,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,2602 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8683 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4190 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 471,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7661 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,535 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,0444 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,311 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4515 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,8738 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,1160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1405

JPY

Japanese yen

128,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4676

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90318

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3393

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1328

ISK

Iceland króna

138,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,9375

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,765

HUF

Hungarian forint

322,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2833

RON

Romanian leu

4,6655

TRY

Turkish lira

6,0860

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5879

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5332

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9241

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6630

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5623

KRW

South Korean won

1 284,20

ZAR

South African rand

16,2602

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8683

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4190

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 471,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7661

PHP

Philippine peso

60,535

RUB

Russian rouble

77,0444

THB

Thai baht

37,311

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4515

MXN

Mexican peso

22,8738

INR

Indian rupee

80,1160

---

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

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 9 March 2018 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto

Rapporteur: Latvia

(2018/C 459/08)

Operation

| 1. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the Transaction constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Union dimension

| 2. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the Transaction has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Product and geographic markets

| 3. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets for vegetable seeds and in particular:






  3.1. | That vegetable seed markets encompass both licensing and seed commercialisation? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

3.1.

That vegetable seed markets encompass both licensing and seed commercialisation?

| 3.2. | That the relevant level to assess price effects is at segment level. |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

That the relevant level to assess price effects is at segment level.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets for broad acre crop seeds, namely as to the segmentation of the:






  4.1. | Upstream and downstream markets for oilseed rape (‘OSR’); |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

4.1.

Upstream and downstream markets for oilseed rape (‘OSR’);

| 4.2. | Upstream and downstream markets for cotton; and |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

Upstream and downstream markets for cotton; and

| 4.3. | Upstream and downstream markets for wheat. |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

Upstream and downstream markets for wheat.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets for broad acre crop traits, namely as to the segmentation of the:






  5.1. | Markets for single traits licensing; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

5.1.

Markets for single traits licensing; and

| 5.2. | Markets for stacks licensing. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

Markets for stacks licensing.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets for crop protection formulated products, namely as to the segmentation of the:






  6.1. | Markets for agricultural non-selective herbicides; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

6.1.

Markets for agricultural non-selective herbicides;

| 6.2. | Markets for non-agricultural non-selective herbicides; |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

Markets for non-agricultural non-selective herbicides;

| 6.3. | Markets for herbicide tolerance systems; |
| --- | --- |

6.3.

Markets for herbicide tolerance systems;

| 6.4. | Markets for seed treatments; |
| --- | --- |

6.4.

Markets for seed treatments;

| 6.5. | Markets for fungicides; |
| --- | --- |

6.5.

Markets for fungicides;

| 6.6. | Markets for insecticides: |
| --- | --- |

6.6.

Markets for insecticides:

| 6.7. | Markets for microbial crop efficiency products; |
| --- | --- |

6.7.

Markets for microbial crop efficiency products;

| 6.8. | Markets for bee health products targeting varroa destructor; and |
| --- | --- |

6.8.

Markets for bee health products targeting varroa destructor; and

| 6.9. | Markets for digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions. |
| --- | --- |

6.9.

Markets for digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's definition of the spaces in which innovation competition takes place, namely as to the definition of the:






  7.1. | Innovation spaces for broad acre crop traits; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

7.1.

Innovation spaces for broad acre crop traits;

| 7.2. | Innovation spaces for non-selective herbicides; |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

Innovation spaces for non-selective herbicides;

| 7.3. | Innovation spaces for HT Systems; |
| --- | --- |

7.3.

Innovation spaces for HT Systems;

| 7.4. | Innovation spaces for fungicides; |
| --- | --- |

7.4.

Innovation spaces for fungicides;

| 7.5. | Innovation spaces for insecticides; |
| --- | --- |

7.5.

Innovation spaces for insecticides;

| 7.6. | Innovation spaces for microbial crop efficiency products; and |
| --- | --- |

7.6.

Innovation spaces for microbial crop efficiency products; and

| 7.7. | Innovation spaces for bee health products. |
| --- | --- |

7.7.

Innovation spaces for bee health products.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant geographic markets in relation to the:






  8.1. | Markets for vegetable seeds; |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

8.1.

Markets for vegetable seeds;

| 8.2. | Upstream and downstream markets for broad acre crop seeds; |
| --- | --- |

8.2.

Upstream and downstream markets for broad acre crop seeds;

| 8.3. | Markets for broad acre crop traits; |
| --- | --- |

8.3.

Markets for broad acre crop traits;

| 8.4. | Markets for crop protection products; and |
| --- | --- |

8.4.

Markets for crop protection products; and

| 8.5. | Markets for digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions. |
| --- | --- |

8.5.

Markets for digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions.

Competitive Assessment

| 9. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's assessment that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition with regard to product/price competition in the:






  9.1. | Markets for vegetable seeds; |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

9.1.

Markets for vegetable seeds;

| 9.2. | Upstream and downstream markets for broad acre crop seeds, namely OSR (downstream markets) and cotton (upstream market); |
| --- | --- |

9.2.

Upstream and downstream markets for broad acre crop seeds, namely OSR (downstream markets) and cotton (upstream market);

| 9.3. | Markets for broad acre crop traits; |
| --- | --- |

9.3.

Markets for broad acre crop traits;

| 9.4. | Markets for agricultural non-selective herbicides for perennial crops; |
| --- | --- |

9.4.

Markets for agricultural non-selective herbicides for perennial crops;

| 9.5. | Markets for industrial vegetation management (pre-post-emergent and post-emergent) non-agricultural non-selective herbicides; |
| --- | --- |

9.5.

Markets for industrial vegetation management (pre-post-emergent and post-emergent) non-agricultural non-selective herbicides;

| 9.6. | Markets for nematicidal seed treatment; and |
| --- | --- |

9.6.

Markets for nematicidal seed treatment; and

| 9.7. | Markets for digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops. |
| --- | --- |

9.7.

Markets for digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's assessment that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition with respect to innovation competition for:






  10.1. | Broad acre crop traits; |
| --- | --- | --- |

10.

10.1.

Broad acre crop traits;

| 10.2. | Non-selective herbicides; and |
| --- | --- |

10.2.

Non-selective herbicides; and

| 10.3. | Herbicide tolerance systems. |
| --- | --- |

10.3.

Herbicide tolerance systems.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission's assessment that the Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition further to the relationship between the Parties' activities in:






  11.1. | Certain markets for vegetable seeds; |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

11.1.

Certain markets for vegetable seeds;

| 11.2. | Markets for wheat seeds; |
| --- | --- |

11.2.

Markets for wheat seeds;

| 11.3. | Innovation in certain markets for foliar fungicides; |
| --- | --- |

11.3.

Innovation in certain markets for foliar fungicides;

| 11.4. | Innovation in certain markets for foliar insecticides; |
| --- | --- |

11.4.

Innovation in certain markets for foliar insecticides;

| 11.5. | Upstream insecticidal and fungicidal seed treatment markets and downstream treated seeds markets (vertical relationship); |
| --- | --- |

11.5.

Upstream insecticidal and fungicidal seed treatment markets and downstream treated seeds markets (vertical relationship);

| 11.6. | Microbial crop efficiency products, both in terms of product and price competition and innovation competition; |
| --- | --- |

11.6.

Microbial crop efficiency products, both in terms of product and price competition and innovation competition;

| 11.7. | Innovation in the market for bee health products targeting varroa destructor; and |
| --- | --- |

11.7.

Innovation in the market for bee health products targeting varroa destructor; and

| 11.8. | Bundling of seeds and crop protection products both at the distributor level and at the grower level. |
| --- | --- |

11.8.

Bundling of seeds and crop protection products both at the distributor level and at the grower level.

Remedies

| 12. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the divestiture of the Vegetable Seeds Divestment Business will address the competition concerns in relation to vegetable seeds. |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | As regards the BASF Divestment Package, the Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission that:






  13.1. | The divestiture of the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses will address the competition concerns in relation to broad acre crop seeds and traits markets, and innovation competition; |
| --- | --- | --- |

13.

13.1.

The divestiture of the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses will address the competition concerns in relation to broad acre crop seeds and traits markets, and innovation competition;

| 13.2. | The divestiture of the GA Divestment Business and the Glyphosate Assets will address the competition concerns in relation to glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium; |
| --- | --- |

13.2.

The divestiture of the GA Divestment Business and the Glyphosate Assets will address the competition concerns in relation to glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium;

| 13.3. | The divestiture of the NemaStrike Assets will address the competition concerns in relation to nematicide seed treatment; |
| --- | --- |

13.3.

The divestiture of the NemaStrike Assets will address the competition concerns in relation to nematicide seed treatment;

| 13.4. | The [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3] Data Transfers and Licences will address the competition concerns in relation to the Parties' respective innovation efforts for non-selective herbicides and HT Systems; |
| --- | --- |

13.4.

The [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3] Data Transfers and Licences will address the competition concerns in relation to the Parties' respective innovation efforts for non-selective herbicides and HT Systems;

| 13.5. | The Digital Agriculture Licence will address the competition concerns in relation to digitally-enabled prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops in the EEA as well as the issues raised in the market test; and |
| --- | --- |

13.5.

The Digital Agriculture Licence will address the competition concerns in relation to digitally-enabled prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops in the EEA as well as the issues raised in the market test; and

| 13.6. | BASF would appear to be prima facie a suitable purchaser of the BASF Divestment Package, subject to further investigation. |
| --- | --- |

13.6.

BASF would appear to be prima facie a suitable purchaser of the BASF Divestment Package, subject to further investigation.

| 14. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the Final Commitments and the approval of BASF as purchaser of the BASF Divestment Package and of the Purchaser of the Vegetable Seeds Divestment Business, the Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Compatibility with the internal market

| 15. | The Advisory Committee (13 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the Transaction should therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

15.

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/9

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto

(2018/C 459/09)

1.

On 30 June 2017 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) by which Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (‘Bayer’ or ‘Notifying Party’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Monsanto Corporation (‘Monsanto’) by way of purchase of shares (the ‘Transaction’). Bayer and Monsanto will be referred to collectively as ‘the Parties’.

2.

The Commission’s first phase investigation raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Transaction with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, in particular as to the effects on competition in crop protection, seeds, traits and digital agriculture. On 22 August 2017, the Commission adopted a decision initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation to which the Notifying Party submitted written comments on 4 September 2017.

3.

On 19 September 2017 and on 26 January 2018 the second phase period for reviewing the Transaction was extended pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation by a total of 15 working days.

4.

On 4 October 2017 and 16 October 2017, the Commission adopted two decisions pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation suspending the merger review time limit due to the failure of the Parties to provide certain requested documents. The first suspension lasted from 21 September 2017 until 13 October 2017 and the second from 10 October 2017 until 3 November 2017, at which dates the requested documents were provided.

5.

Upon their request, I have recognised Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft e.V., Avaaz Foundation, DowDuPont Inc. and IPES-Food as interested third persons in the current proceedings.

6.

The Commission adopted a statement of objections in this case on 14 December 2017, and this was notified to the Parties on the same day. The Parties responded to the statement of objections on 9 January 2018. The Parties did not request the opportunity to develop their arguments in a formal oral hearing.

7.

The Commission sent several letters of facts, on 26 January 2018 and 1 and 8 February 2018, allowing the Parties to comment on additional factual elements.

8.

The Parties submitted a formal set of commitments on 2 February 2018. On 5 February 2018 the Parties submitted a slightly revised version of the commitments. The Commission market tested these commitments on 6 February 2018. On the basis of feedback from the Commission’s targeted market test of this package, the Parties submitted updated commitments on 16 February 2018 (the ‘Final Commitments’).

9.

In the draft decision the Commission comes to the conclusion that the Final Commitments are adequate and sufficient to eliminate the significant impediment to effective competition in the areas where a significant impediment to effective competition has been identified. As a result, the Commission declares the Transaction compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to conditions and obligations intended to ensure that Bayer complies with the Final Commitments.

10.

I have reviewed the draft decision pursuant to Article 16(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU and I conclude that it deals only with objections in respect of which the Parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

11.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 12 March 2018.

Wouter WILS

---

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

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

2

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/10

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 21 March 2018

declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement

(Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto)

(notified under document number C(2018) 1709)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/10)

On 21 March 2018 the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8(2) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision, as the case may be in the form of a provisional version, can be found in English on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The Decision declares the acquisition of Monsanto Company (‘Monsanto’) by Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (‘Bayer’; together with Monsanto ‘the Parties’) by way of a purchase of shares (the ‘Transaction’) compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

2.   PROCEDURE

| (2) | On 14 September 2016, Bayer announced that it would acquire control of Monsanto. Bayer notified the Transaction to the Commission on 30 June 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | By decision dated 22 August 2017 (2), the Commission found that the Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | The in-depth investigation confirmed the competition concerns preliminarily identified. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | On 16 February 2018, the Notifying Party submitted the final commitments (‘Final Commitments’) that render the Transaction compatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | The draft Decision was consulted with the Member States during the Advisory Committee on Concentrations on 9 March 2018, which provided a favourable opinion. The Hearing Officer provided his favourable opinion on the proceedings in his report which was issued on 12 March 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | In its reasoned request of 4 April 2018, as modified on 6 April 2018, the Notifying Party proposed to amend the Final Commitments, as described below under sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.5. By decision of 11 April 2018, the Commission approved the modification of the Final Commitments (3). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

3.   THE PARTIES

| (8) | Bayer, incorporated in Germany, is active in four areas: pharmaceuticals, consumer health, agriculture (‘Bayer Crop Science’), and animal health. The competitive effects of the Transaction mainly concern the Bayer Crop Science division. Bayer Crop Science operates three business segments: (i) Crop Protection; (ii) Seeds; and (iii) Environmental Science. Bayer is also active in developing biological technologies and developing and providing digital agriculture services. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Monsanto, incorporated in the USA, is an agriculture company which produces seeds and crop protection products (focused on glyphosate herbicide which it commercialises under the ‘Roundup’ brand). Additionally, Monsanto is involved in research on agricultural biologicals. Monsanto also provides farmers with digital agriculture services through ‘The Climate Corporation’. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

4.   UNION DIMENSION

| (10) | The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million [Bayer: EUR [...]; Monsanto: EUR [...]]. Each of them has a Union-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million [Bayer: EUR [...]; Monsanto: EUR [...]], but they do not achieve more than two thirds of their aggregate Union-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The Transaction therefore has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

5.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

5.1.   The relevant product markets

| (11) | The Decision addresses the following areas/markets where the Parties are active:






  (a) | Vegetable seeds (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual price/product competition); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(11)

(a)

Vegetable seeds (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual price/product competition);

| (b) | Broad acre crop seeds, including oilseed rape, cotton and wheat (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual and potential price/product competition); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Broad acre crop seeds, including oilseed rape, cotton and wheat (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual and potential price/product competition);

| (c) | Broad acre crop traits (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual and potential price/product competition as well as on innovation competition); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Broad acre crop traits (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual and potential price/product competition as well as on innovation competition);

| (d) | Crop protection, including agricultural and non-agricultural non-selective herbicides (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual and potential price/product competition as well as on innovation competition) and herbicide tolerance systems (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), seed treatment (horizontal non-coordinated effects on potential competition and vertical effects), fungicides (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), insecticides (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), microbial crop efficiency products (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), bee health products targeting varroa mites (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Crop protection, including agricultural and non-agricultural non-selective herbicides (horizontal non-coordinated effects on actual and potential price/product competition as well as on innovation competition) and herbicide tolerance systems (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), seed treatment (horizontal non-coordinated effects on potential competition and vertical effects), fungicides (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), insecticides (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), microbial crop efficiency products (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition), bee health products targeting varroa mites (horizontal non-coordinated effects on innovation competition);

| (e) | Digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops (horizontal non-coordinated effects on potential price/product competition). |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops (horizontal non-coordinated effects on potential price/product competition).

5.1.1.   
  Vegetable seeds

| (12) | The Commission has found that the relevant product market encompasses both licensing and commercialisation of vegetable seeds for each vegetable crop. The Commission has also found that each vegetable crop constitutes a separate product market, but consists of highly differentiated segments. The Commission has therefore considered that it is relevant to make the competitive assessment of price effects at segment level. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | The Commission has used the segmentation suggested by the Parties which has been found to be reliable. The segmentation distinguishes segments by: (i) Growing environment (open field, netted and plastic house, or glass house); (ii) Seed type (open-pollinated or hybrid); (iii) Use (fresh or processing); (iv) Whether or not the grown plant has been bred as rootstock; and (v) Features of the grown vegetable (vegetable type, size, colour, flavour, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | The Commission has found that the geographic scope of the vegetable seeds markets is national due to national registration, national distribution and weak price arbitrage between countries. However, the Commission has also noted that there are other factors which suggest that the market for vegetable seeds might be broader than national. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

5.1.2.   
  Broad acre crop seeds

| (15) | The Commission has analysed the markets for broad acre crops where the Parties' activities overlap: oilseed rape, cotton and wheat. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

5.1.2.1.   Oilseed rape (‘OSR’)

| (16) | The OSR industry is a two-stage industry, comprising (i) the breeding of new OSR varieties; and (ii) the commercial production of seed from these varieties and the sale of the seed to customers. Bayer and Monsanto both breed and commercialise new varieties of OSR throughout the EU, as well as in other parts of the world. Both have fully-fledged breeding programmes in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | The Commission considers that the relevant product markets for OSR are: (i) the upstream market for the licensing of germplasm for the purposes of breeding new OSR varieties; (ii) the upstream market for the licensing of OSR varieties for the purposes of commercialisation; and (iii) the downstream market for the commercialisation of OSR seeds. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | The Commission leaves open whether the downstream markets should be further sub-divided between the two types of OSR that are cultivated across Europe: winter oilseed rape (‘WOSR’) and summer (or spring) oilseed rape (‘SOSR’). |
| --- | --- |

(18)

| (19) | The Commission considers that: (i) the geographic scope of the market for the licensing of germplasm is EU-wide; (ii) the market for the licensing of OSR varieties is EU-wide in scope; and (iii) the geographic scope of the market for the commercialisation of OSR varieties is national. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

5.1.2.2.   Cotton

| (20) | The Commission considers that the relevant market for the purposes of the competitive analysis is the licensing of cotton varieties for production and sale. The geographic scope of such market is EU-wide. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

5.1.2.3.   Wheat

| (21) | The Commission considers two relevant product markets: (i) the upstream market for the licensing of wheat varieties for production and sale (but not breeding); and (ii) the downstream market for the commercialisation of wheat seeds. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

| (22) | Furthermore, the Commission has found that the geographic scope of the market for wheat is EU-wide for the (upstream) licensing market and national for the (downstream) commercialisation market. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

5.1.3.   
  Broad acre crop traits

| (23) | The Commission has found that upstream of seed breeding and commercialisation, there are three different market layers for traits. These are: (i) the trait discoveries licensing layer; (ii) the single traits licensing layer; and (iii) the stacks licensing layer. The Commission considers that the trait discoveries licensing layer does not constitute a product market but it is rather an innovation space, whereas it considers that there are separate product markets for the licensing of stacks on the one hand, and the licensing of traits on the other hand. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

| (24) | In the single traits licensing layer, the relevant product markets are identified by a specific functionality such as tolerance to a specific herbicide as well as a specific crop. In the case of Insect Resistance (‘IR’) functionalities, a further sub-segmentation of IR traits is defined based on the family of insects the trait provides resistance to. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

| (25) | For the stacks licensing layer, the relevant product markets are distinguishable by crop. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

| (26) | The Commission considers that the relevant geographic markets for the licensing of traits and the licensing of stacks are global. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

5.1.4.   
  Crop protection

5.1.4.1.   Weed management

(A)   Agricultural non-selective herbicides

| (27) | Non-selective herbicides (‘NSH’) are products which have a broad spectrum of action and kill both grasses and broadleaf weeds. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

| (28) | The Commission considers that the relevant product market for agricultural herbicides should be segmented, on the one hand, between selective herbicides and NSH and, on the other hand, within NSH, between perennial crops (the only segment where the Parties materially overlap in the EEA) and non-perennial crops. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

| (29) | The Commission also considers that crop protection product markets are national in geographic scope. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

(B)   Non-agricultural non-selective herbicides

| (30) | The Commission considers that the relevant product markets for non-agricultural NSH should be segmented between (i) industrial vegetation management (‘IVM’); and (ii) turf and ornamentals. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

| (31) | Moreover, the Commission considers that, within IVM, brush killers and railways applications constitute separate relevant product markets. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

| (32) | The Commission further considers that, still within the IVM segment, NSH should also be grouped according to the timing of their application in two categories comprising respectively (a) pre-emergent products and pre-post-emergent products; and (b) post-emergent products and pre-post-emergent products. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

| (33) | The Commission considers the relevant markets are national in geographic scope. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

(C)   Herbicide tolerance systems

| (34) | Weed management systems combine non-selective herbicides typically with crops tolerant to these herbicides, either through genetic modification of such crops (‘GM Systems’) or, more rarely, through the use of natively tolerant, i.e. non-genetically modified, crops (‘Non-GM Systems’). GM Systems and Non-GM Systems are referred together as ‘HT Systems’. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

| (35) | The Commission considers that all HT Systems for a given crop compete in a differentiated relevant product market and that the corresponding innovation spaces includes innovation in HT Systems both across crops (especially at early research stages) as well as for each relevant crop (such as soy, cotton, corn, OSR/canola, rice, wheat). |
| --- | --- |

(35)

| (36) | The Commission considers that the relevant geographic scope of the innovation spaces for HT Systems is worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

5.1.4.2.   Seed treatment

| (37) | Seed treatment is the treatment (or dressing) of seeds with specific formulations to protect them in the early stages of their development. Seed treatment therefore targets diseases and soil-dwelling or early season insects (‘fungicidal and insecticidal seed treatment’), as well as nematodes (‘nematicidal seed treatment’). |
| --- | --- |

(37)

| (38) | The Commission considered that seed treatment constitutes a separate product market rather than a particular type of application of crop protection products. Seed treatment is further divided by crop and by indication (e.g., insecticides and fungicides). As regards nematicidal seed treatment, the Commission considers that the relevant product market to retain for the competitive analysis is seed treatment for nematode control on a crop by crop basis. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

| (39) | As regards the downstream market to the seed treatment market, for the purposes of the Decision, it can be left open whether the downstream product market includes also untreated seeds. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

| (40) | The Commission considers that seed treatment product markets are national in geographic scope. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

5.1.4.3.   Fungicides

| (41) | Fungicides are agrochemicals that control diseases; they are used to prevent the deterioration of plants and plant products caused by fungi and moulds. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

| (42) | The Commission has carried out its competitive assessment of fungicides by crop/disease. The Commission also considers that the relevant innovation space for its assessment is innovation in fungicides for different crop/diseases or groups of diseases. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

| (43) | The Commission also considers that it can be left open whether chemical and biological fungicides constitute separate product markets since the Transaction does not give rise to concerns about its compatibility with the internal market under any plausible market definition. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

| (44) | The fungicide product markets are national in geographic scope. The geographic dimension of innovation spaces can be left open. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

5.1.4.4.   Insecticides

| (45) | Insecticides are products designed to control insects that damage cultivated crops, particularly food crops. They can be applied in a number of different ways, including foliar, soil and seed treatment application. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

| (46) | The Commission has carried out its competitive assessment of insecticides by crop/pest. The Commission considers that the relevant innovation space for its assessment is insecticides on a pest basis. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

| (47) | The Commission considers that it can be left open whether insecticides should be further divided between biologicals and chemicals since the Transaction does not give rise to concerns about its compatibility with the internal market under any plausible market definition. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

| (48) | The insecticide product markets are national in geographic scope, while the geographic dimension of innovation spaces can be left open. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

5.1.4.5.   Microbial crop efficiency products

| (49) | Microbials (also known as ‘biological’ crop protection products) are comprised of microorganisms, typically a bacterium, virus or fungus. They can be used to protect crops (biopesticides) and/or to enhance plant productivity and fertility (biostimulants and biofertilisers). |
| --- | --- |

(49)

| (50) | Biostimulants and biofertilisers are designed to improve crop health, yield and tolerance to stress conditions and unlike biopesticides, do not have any direct actions against pest or disease. They are also referred to as ‘crop efficiency’ products. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

| (51) | The product market definition for microbials crop efficiency products as well as the relevant geographic market definition can be left open since the Transaction does not give rise to concerns about its compatibility with the internal market under any plausible market definition. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

| (52) | The Commission considers that the relevant innovation space for its assessment is innovation in microbial crop efficiency products. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

5.1.4.6.   Bee health

| (53) | The Commission considers that there is a separate product market for products which target and control varroa mite infestations of bee colonies. The Commission also considers that market segmentation between biologicals and chemicals products or on the basis of the active ingredient/mode of action or mode of administration does not appear justified. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

| (54) | The Commission further considers that the relevant innovation space is bee health products targeting varroa destructor. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

| (55) | The bee health product markets are national in geographic scope, while the geographic dimension of innovation spaces can be left open. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

5.1.5.   
  Digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions

| (56) | Digital agriculture refers to the collection of data and information about farms with the aim of providing tailored advice or aggregated data to farmers to increase farm productivity. Digital agriculture is currently in its infancy but developing fast. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

| (57) | Within digital agriculture, digitally-enabled prescriptions refer to recommendations or advice on the selection and application (e.g. doses, timing) of inputs (e.g. crop protection products) provided at a geographically increasingly granular level (e.g. field, field-zone or narrower) for a farmer to implement. The recommendations or advice in question is generated by an analytics agronomic engine based on large sets of public and proprietary data. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

| (58) | The Commission concludes that digitally-enabled prescription services constitute a distinct category of services within digital agriculture since (i) they required, inter alia, more layers of data, more complex algorithms and broader capabilities; and (ii) they recommend a concrete action plan for farmers, with a high level of granularity and customisation. The Commission considers that this should be further segmented by input product (e.g. fungicides etc.) and by crop groupings (e.g. broad acre crops). |
| --- | --- |

(58)

| (59) | With regard to the relevant geographic market, the Commission considers that it is national in scope, although in its assessment the Commission also took into account the broader regional geographic context where relevant. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

5.2.   Competitive assessment

5.2.1.   
  Vegetable seeds

| (60) | The Commission has assessed horizontal effects on price/product competition in vegetable seeds markets. In the EU, the Parties' activities overlap in 16 vegetable crops (e.g. tomatoes, cucumbers, etc.). Each crop is further divided into segments (e.g. cherry tomatoes grown in greenhouses). |
| --- | --- |

(60)

| (61) | The price competition for vegetable seeds takes place at segment/country level. The competitive assessment has therefore to be conducted in several hundreds of segment/country combinations. In view of this high number of segment/country combinations to be assessed, the Commission has applied filters based on market share and concentration levels (HHI and HHI delta) in order to identify markets where the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition. For certain markets, the Commission has conducted a more in-depth assessment based on structural and qualitative factors. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

| (62) | On this basis, the Commission has considered that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition due to non-coordinated effects and/or creation or strengthening of a dominant position in a number of vegetable seeds markets across the EU, corresponding to approximately 200 segment/country combinations. |
| --- | --- |

(62)

5.2.2.   
  Broad acre crop seeds

5.2.2.1.   Oilseed rape (‘OSR’)

| (63) | Monsanto is currently the market leader in the EEA. Bayer's EEA market share in WOSR is around [0-5] % at both commercialisation and breeder levels. The Commission considers that the available combined market shares may understate the Parties' competitive position, in particular in light of the expected success on Bayer's leading products in Canola and its overall strategy for OSR in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

| (64) | Bayer is currently the global leading player in OSR. The Commission's investigation showed that, pre-Transaction, Bayer had credible plans and strong capabilities to become a leading OSR player in the EU and that such plans were already showing some positive results. The Transaction with Monsanto risks jeopardising such plans with the likely effect of harming OSR customers. |
| --- | --- |

(64)

| (65) | Moreover, the Commission considers that Bayer is likely to become a strong competitor in national OSR markets where Monsanto is also strong. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

| (66) | For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in relation to OSR seeds in France, Ireland, Estonia and the UK, because it is likely that it would eliminate an important competitive constraint and result in non-coordinated effects on product and price competition. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

5.2.2.2.   Cotton

| (67) | The overlap in the Parties' activities in the cotton seed business in the EU arises in the (upstream) market for licensing of cotton seeds for commercialisation. |
| --- | --- |

(67)

| (68) | The Commission considers that the Transaction brings together the two most important competitors in the EU market for the licensing of cotton varieties for production and sale. |
| --- | --- |

(68)

| (69) | The Parties' strong position in the EU market for licensing of cotton varieties for production and sale follows from their strong global position in cotton seeds. The market investigation has revealed that the strengths of the Parties include the quality of their germplasm pool, their breeding capacities, their R & D programs, their ability to develop traits and their capacity to access cotton customers. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

| (70) | For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in relation to licensing of cotton varieties for production and sale in the EU because it is likely that it would strengthen or at least create a dominant position, due to horizontal non-coordinated effects. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

5.2.2.3.   Wheat

| (71) | Since none of the Parties is currently active in the commercialisation of wheat seeds in the EU, the Commission has assessed whether Bayer and Monsanto would be potential competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(71)

| (72) | The Commission finds that, at present, there is a significant likelihood that Bayer would [business plans] grow into an effective competitive force. Monsanto's commercial wheat activities take place in the US. Monsanto's commercial wheat seed business is entirely made up of open pollinated varieties. The Commission finds that there is no significant likelihood that Monsanto would grow into an effective competitive force in Europe in a reasonable period of time. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

| (73) | Moreover, the Commission considers that, in light of Bayer's strategy focused on hybrid wheat, if Monsanto were to enter with open pollinated varieties, Bayer and Monsanto would not be close competitors in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

(73)

| (74) | Finally, the Commission finds that, at present, there is a sufficient number of other wheat competitors, which would maintain sufficient competitive pressure after the Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

| (75) | For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Transaction is unlikely to significantly impede effective competition on the markets for wheat seeds in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

(75)

5.2.3.   
  Broad acre crop traits

| (76) | The Commission is competent to assess the effects of the Transaction on the markets for the licensing of traits for the following reasons. First, the Transaction has direct and immediate effects on European players active on the global upstream market for the licensing of traits. On this market the Transaction affects directly important European seed companies, which in-license Bayer's and/or Monsanto's traits, and also affects other European market players that are competitors to the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

| (77) | Second, GM traits are not as such banned from Europe. In fact some GM traits are deployed and GM crops are grown in Europe. A Monsanto IR trait conferring corn resistance to Lepidoptera, called MON810, is approved for cultivation in a few Member States, namely Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Third, the EU is a very significant importer of GM crops. The Parties estimate that total imports in the EEA of GM crops amount to approximately USD 13 billion, the vast majority of which carry Bayer's or Monsanto's traits. Fourth, not all traits are of the GM type. Some non-GM traits are commercially available today, and both Bayer and Monsanto are innovators in non-GM traits and consider the EU as an important market. |
| --- | --- |

(77)

5.2.3.1.   Product competition

| (78) | The Commission has in particular assessed the competition between Bayer's Liberty-Link and Monsanto's Roundup Ready across corn, OSR/canola, cotton, and soybean. In soybean the Commission has identified overlap in HT traits, and in particular glyphosate HT (Roundup Ready) and glufosinate HT (LibertyLink) with limited alternatives. In cotton, the Parties overlap in HT and IR traits, and competitors provide for limited alternatives. In OSR the Commission has identified overlap in HT traits with limited constraints from competitors. In corn the Commission concludes that the overlap in HT traits would strengthen Monsanto's dominant position in corn HT trait market. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

| (79) | Further the Commission has identified horizontal overlap in stacks: there are a number of overlaps of close competing products in soybean, cotton, and OSR, with often limited alternatives from competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(79)

| (80) | On that basis the Commission considers the Transaction would significantly impede effective price and product competition (actual and potential) in each of the following markets: (i) soybean HT; (ii) cotton HT; (iii) Cotton IR Lep; (iv) Corn HT; (v) OSR/canola HT; (vi) soybean stacks; (vii) cotton stacks; (viii) OSR/canola stacks. |
| --- | --- |

(80)

| (81) | In HT OSR the transaction would create a dominant position. |
| --- | --- |

(81)

5.2.3.2.   Innovation competition in traits

| (82) | Industry players engage in innovation efforts to discover and develop new traits. When considering both the downstream product markets and the upstream technology markets, innovation should not be understood as a market in its own right, but as an input activity for both the upstream technology markets and the downstream product markets. This however does not prevent the Commission from assessing the impact of the Transaction at the level of innovation efforts by the Parties and its competitors. The Commission has assessed innovation competition taking place in innovation spaces consisting of groupings of crop/functionality combinations. |
| --- | --- |

(82)

| (83) | Trait R & D is characterised by high barriers to entry and expansion and for HT and IR traits the R & D is highly concentrated with just four integrated players. The Parties are leading innovators in traits. Further the Commission's patent data showed that the Parties are important innovators for several innovation spaces and for cross-crop inventions in weed control and insect control. |
| --- | --- |

(83)

| (84) | The Commission considers that the Transaction is likely to significantly impede effective competition as regards innovation competition in areas where research and development activities of the Parties overlap, and the Parties are close competitors with limited alternatives. These areas are soy HT, IR and SCN, cotton HT and IR, OSR HT, non GM HT wheat and cross crop research. The Commission considers that the Transaction is likely to significantly impede effective competition as regards innovation competition in the overall innovation in HT and IR for these crops by eliminating actual or potential innovation competition between the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

5.2.3.3.   Strengthening of Monsanto's dominant position

| (85) | Monsanto is dominant in the relevant markets but also at industry level because of Monsanto's leverage of the RoundupReady platform across crops. In this context, Bayer is one of the few remaining competitors and at the same time particularly active and well-resourced that could challenge Monsanto. Against this background, the Commission's investigation has confirmed a likely risk of foreclosure of other trait competitors. The Commission considers that the Transaction would strengthen a dominant position of Monsanto. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

5.2.4.   
  Crop protection

5.2.4.1.   Weed management

(A)   Agricultural and non-agricultural non-selective herbicides (non-coordinated effects on actual and potential product and price competition)

| (86) | In the EEA, Monsanto only sells glyphosate, mostly under the Roundup brand. Glyphosate is the highest selling crop protection AI globally, largely because of its use over herbicide-tolerant crops, but also in the EEA. Monsanto is also developing [pipeline products]. |
| --- | --- |

(86)

| (87) | In the EEA, Bayer manufactures and sells NSH chiefly based on the glufosinate AI. Bayer also sells limited quantities of glyphosate formulations. Bayer currently plans to launch [pipeline product]. Finally, Bayer has a number of different pipeline projects ([NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3]) which target Monsanto's glyphosate franchise. |
| --- | --- |

(87)

| (88) | As regards overlaps between currently available products in the EEA, the Parties have high combined national market shares with an increment under all plausible market definitions both in agricultural uses and non-agricultural uses (i.e. industrial vegetation management such as roads, railways, etc.), likely leading to non-coordinated effects or even the creation/strengthening of dominant positions. The market investigation confirmed that, while the Parties' products are differentiated, they do compete head-to-head for a significant number of needs and are close competitors, if only because they are the two closest of at most three NSH in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(88)

| (89) | Also the Commission has found that the Parties are working to preserve or if possible even strengthen their positions in agricultural NSH markets through the launch of closely competing forthcoming products. |
| --- | --- |

(89)

| (90) | The Commission considers that, although regulatory pressure appears to affect NSH in the EEA, it does not affect all relevant national markets and appears to affect a competing AI the most, therefore making glyphosate and glufosinate even closer competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

| (91) | The Commission has also assessed the competitive constraint from third party competitors. Overall the Commission considers it unlikely that competitors would constitute a significant competitive constraint post-Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(91)

| (92) | For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Transaction would significant impede effective competition in relation to agricultural NSH for perennial crops and to non-agricultural NSH (pre-post-emergent and post-emergent for IVM uses) in several Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(92)

(B)   Non-selective herbicide innovation (non-coordinated effects on innovation competition)

| (93) | With respect to innovation competition involving forthcoming and early pipeline products, the investigation revealed direct overlaps between Monsanto's [pipeline products] (which also includes a collaboration with Sumitomo on a novel PPO chemistry) and Bayer's early pipeline (which also includes [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3]) tailored to attack the glyphosate franchise in all its uses (burndown, over-the-top of herbicide-tolerant crops, and perennial crops). The Commission investigation revealed that the Parties are important and close competitors in the NSH innovation space. |
| --- | --- |

(93)

| (94) | The Commission considers likely that the Parties' incentives to independently pursue their R & D efforts which are in close competition with each other would be reduced post-Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

| (95) | The Commission's investigation has also found that the constraint that would be exercised post-Transaction by the remaining competitors would be insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

(95)

| (96) | For these reasons, the Commission considers that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in relation to NSH innovation because it would likely eliminate an important and close competitive constraint leading to potential harm to innovation competition in NSH by combining the Parties' respective innovation capabilities and product portfolios in NSH. |
| --- | --- |

(96)

(C)   Herbicide tolerance systems (non-coordinated effects on innovation competition)

| (97) | While HT systems are currently not significantly used in the EEA because HT GM traits are not generally approved, the Commission considers itself competent to assess systems globally for the same reasons as explained above with regard to broad acre traits and trait stacks (see paragraphs 76-77), which are one of the key components of such systems. |
| --- | --- |

(97)

| (98) | The Transaction would cause non-coordinated effects on innovation for the independent systems for which Bayer and Monsanto have followed parallel tracks and would continue to do so absent the Transaction, including in non-GM HT systems for wheat where [business plans] very few [business plans] players appear to be active. |
| --- | --- |

(98)

| (99) | In particular, both Parties are working on additional layers based on the [NSH line of research 2] and [NSH line of research 3] modes of action to complement their respective HT Systems across crops and globally, with both Bayer and Monsanto [pipeline product] having notably close parallel efforts in [the NSH line of research 3 mode of action]. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

| (100) | In addition, both Parties have developed strong capabilities to discover and develop [pipeline product], and Bayer is currently working on [pipeline product]. |
| --- | --- |

(100)

| (101) | The Commission considers likely that the Parties' incentives to independently pursue their R & D efforts in HT Systems which are in close competition with each other would be reduced post-Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(101)

| (102) | Moreover, the Commission considers that there is a limited constraint from innovation efforts of competitors in this area in view of high barriers to entry for innovation both in NSH and traits — two key components of HT Systems — as well as specifically for HT Systems. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

| (103) | The Commission considers that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in relation to innovation in HT Systems because it would eliminate important competitive constraints the Parties exercise pre-Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(103)

5.2.4.2.   Seed treatment

(A)   Nematicidal seed treatment (potential competition)

| (104) | There are currently no nematicidal seed treatments sold in the EEA. Both Parties are planning to launch nematicidal seed treatments in the EEA in the near future. |
| --- | --- |

(104)

| (105) | The Commission considers that the Parties are important and close competitors in markets for nematicidal seed treatment in [crops] across the EEA. The market investigation indicates that [integration plans]. |
| --- | --- |

(105)

| (106) | The Parties' competitors are considerably smaller and lack the capabilities as well as scale and scope of the larger players. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

| (107) | The Commission concludes that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in relation to nematicidal seed treatment in [crops], in all EEA Member States where these crops are grown, because it is likely that it would eliminate an important competitive constraint and result in non-coordinated effects on product and price competition. |
| --- | --- |

(107)

(B)   Fungicidal and Insecticidal seed treatment (vertical effects)

| (108) | Bayer is a leading seed treatment player in the EEA, particularly in insecticidal seed treatment for corn, while Monsanto is no longer active in seed treatment in the EEA [...]. Hence, there is no overlap between the Parties in the EEA with regard to insecticidal and fungicidal seed treatment. Yet, the Transaction gives rise to a vertical relationship between the upstream market for seed treatment and the downstream market for (treated) seeds where both Bayer and Monsanto are active. |
| --- | --- |

(108)

| (109) | As regards insecticidal seed treatment, the Transaction gives rise to affected market in relation to insecticidal seed treatment for corn and OSR in several Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(109)

| (110) | While Bayer has a strong position in seed treatment on several of these markets, the Commission considers that Bayer is not likely to preserve it due (i) to evolving regulatory situation and (ii) the likely imminent entrance of new players on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(110)

| (111) | Therefore, the Commission considers that post-Transaction the Parties would not likely have the ability and incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy to the detriment of players on the market for corn seeds treated with insecticidal seed treatment. |
| --- | --- |

(111)

| (112) | Moreover, the Commission considers that post-Transaction the Parties would not have significant market power in the downstream markets. |
| --- | --- |

(112)

| (113) | As regards fungicidal seed treatment, on the two affected market upstream (Austria and UK) Bayer is merely active as a reseller of generic products that can be produced and sold by other suppliers. Furthermore, the investigation indicated that, while on the national market concerned Bayer is the only supplier, at EEA level there other suppliers that might enter the Austrian and the UK markets. |
| --- | --- |

(113)

5.2.4.3.   Fungicides (innovation competition)

| (114) | There are no overlaps in the EEA for fungicides, on the basis that Monsanto does not currently sell any of these products in the EEA. Overlaps between Bayer and Monsanto are limited to overlaps in innovation. |
| --- | --- |

(114)

| (115) | The investigation indicated that Bayer and Monsanto are not close competitors in innovation and there is a sufficient number of competitors active in the same innovation spaces, which would maintain sufficient competitive pressure after the Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(115)

| (116) | In light of the evidence available to it, the Commission considers that the Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition with respect to innovation competition in fungicides. |
| --- | --- |

(116)

5.2.4.4.   Insecticides (innovation competition)

| (117) | There are no overlaps in the EEA on the product market for insecticides, on the basis that Monsanto does not currently sell any of these products in the EEA. Overlaps between Bayer and Monsanto are limited to overlaps in innovation. |
| --- | --- |

(117)

| (118) | In light of the evidence available to it, the Commission considers that the Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition with respect to innovation on insecticides. |
| --- | --- |

(118)

5.2.4.5.   Microbial Crop Efficiency Products (innovation competition)

| (119) | There is no current overlap between the Parties in biostimulant or biofertilisers in the EEA, on the basis that Bayer does not sell any products in the EEA at the moment. |
| --- | --- |

(119)

| (120) | The Commission finds that although the proposed Transaction will combine two important players in biologicals, there will continue to be numerous other players with important innovation capabilities and with the ability to bring new products to the market. |
| --- | --- |

(120)

| (121) | On balance, the Commission considers that the Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in relation to microbial crop efficiency seed treatment, both in terms of product and price competition and innovation competition. |
| --- | --- |

(121)

5.2.4.6.   Bee health (innovation competition)

| (122) | There are no overlaps in the EEA on the product market for bee health products targeting varroa mites, on the basis that Monsanto does not currently sell any of these products in the EEA. Overlaps between Bayer and Monsanto are limited to overlaps in innovation. |
| --- | --- |

(122)

| (123) | The Commission considers the evidence available is not sufficient to establish to the requisite standard that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition with respect to innovation competition in bee health products targeting varroa mites in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(123)

5.2.5.   
  Digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions

| (124) | The Commission considers that (i) Bayer and Monsanto are potential competitors in the market for the provision of digitally-enabled prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops. |
| --- | --- |

(124)

| (125) | Bayer [pipeline product]. |
| --- | --- |

(125)

| (126) | Monsanto about to launch its digital agriculture platform in the EEA, FielView and [pipeline product]. |
| --- | --- |

(126)

| (127) | Moreover, the Commission considers that (ii) absent the Transaction, Bayer and Monsanto are likely to impose important competitive constraints on each other and on other competitors. Monsanto is considered the leader in digital agriculture globally and Bayer is a leading digital agriculture player in Europe; and both companies have the broad capabilities required to develop and improve digitally-enabled prescriptions, including access to significant proprietary and third-party agronomic data. |
| --- | --- |

(127)

| (128) | Furthermore, (iii) Bayer and Monsanto are only comparable to a limited number of competitors which are unlikely to exercise a sufficient degree of competitive pressure post-Transaction regarding digitally-enabled prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(128)

| (129) | Additionally, the Commission considers that: (iv) digital agriculture, including digitally-enabled prescriptions, is characterised by first mover advantage; and that (v) following the Transaction, Bayer's innovation efforts in digital agriculture are likely to be in whole or in part discontinued. |
| --- | --- |

(129)

| (130) | Therefore, the Commission considers that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in relation to digitally-enabled agronomic prescriptions due to the elimination of an important competitive constraint in the market, in particular in the market for the provision of digitally-enabled prescriptions of fungicides for broad acre crops in all EEA Member States where the Parties [pipeline product]. |
| --- | --- |

(130)

5.2.6.   
  Integration of seeds and crop protection products (conglomerate effects)

| (131) | Bayer is a leading crop protection player globally whereas Monsanto is a leading traits, seeds and digital agriculture player globally. The Commission conducted a detailed assessment of the likelihood that the Transaction would significantly impede effective competition in the EEA due to conglomerate effects resulting in the foreclosure of competitors, in particular due to the bundling of the Parties' crop protection and seeds products, possibly facilitated by digital agriculture. |
| --- | --- |

(131)

| (132) | The Commission assessed the ability and the incentive of the merged entity to engage in bundling strategies both at the distributor and at the grower level, as well as the likely impact of such strategies on competition. |
| --- | --- |

(132)

| (133) | The Commission's investigation has not confirmed that the Parties have sufficient market power in general and in particular power over distributors (which themselves appear to have a strong degree of buyer power) or growers (who appear to be reluctant to receive recommendations and suggestions for bundles from input providers) in order to successfully engage in bundling strategies. |
| --- | --- |

(133)

| (134) | Moreover, since GM traits are hardly cultivated in Europe, the additional market power brought about by the Transaction is limited. |
| --- | --- |

(134)

| (135) | In any event, based on the available evidence, even if the Parties were able to pursue bundling strategies, the share of the market foreclosed for single product players would be small and a sufficient number of rivals would still remain. |
| --- | --- |

(135)

| (136) | Furthermore, the remaining rivals would likely have the ability and incentive to effectively react. |
| --- | --- |

(136)

| (137) | In addition, the Parties' emerging activities in digital agriculture in the EEA are also not considered likely to change the above-mentioned conclusions with respect to potential bundling in the medium term because they are currently only being developed and launched. Conclusions regarding their impact on facilitating bundling are difficult to draw in view of the emerging nature of these business models. |
| --- | --- |

(137)

| (138) | On balance therefore, while the merged entity may try to engage in some bundling strategies in the future, it is not possible for the Commission to conclude that the Transaction would have a sufficient probability of having significant anticompetitive effects due to bundling. |
| --- | --- |

(138)

5.2.7.   
  Non-competition concerns

| (139) | During the merger proceedings, a number of third parties expressed to the Commission concerns regarding the potential effects of the Transaction which were not related to the protection of effective competition, for example concerning environment, sustainable development and public health, as well as the agricultural sector. |
| --- | --- |

(139)

| (140) | While the Commission considered these submissions seriously, it has assessed the compatibility of the Transaction with the internal market based on the test set out in Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation, taking into account within its assessment of the competition effects of the Transaction's non-competition concerns, only to the extent permitted and required under the Treaty and the Merger Regulation, for example in the context of the assessment of innovation competition. |
| --- | --- |

(140)

6.   REMEDIES

| (141) | In order to render the Transaction compatible with the internal market the Notifying Party submitted on 2 February 2018 the First Commitments, which were market tested by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(141)

| (142) | The market test was largely positive both on the scope of the remedy and on BASF as buyer of the BASF remedy package, but identified a few shortcomings which the Notifying Party sought to address by submitting the Final Commitments on 16 February 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(142)

| (143) | The Final Commitments have two main components: (i) a commitment to divest businesses and assets relating to broad acre crop seeds and traits, crop protection and digital agriculture (4) to BASF (the ‘BASF Divestment Package’); and (ii) a commitment to divest Bayer's global vegetable seeds business (the ‘Vegetable Seeds Divestment Business’). |
| --- | --- |

(143)

6.1.   BASF Divestment Package

| (144) | The Final Commitments identify BASF as purchaser of the BASF Divestment package and contain an upfront buyer clause, meaning the Transaction can only be implemented after the Commission has approved (1) BASF as the purchaser of the BASF Divestment Package; and (2) the final sale and purchase agreements. |
| --- | --- |

(144)

| (145) | In the Decision, the Commission does not make a final assessment of whether BASF is a suitable purchaser nor whether the agreements between the Notifying Party and BASF are consistent with the Decision and the Final Commitments. This is because the final agreements between Bayer and BASF are not yet concluded and because a number of issues concerning the suitability of BASF as a purchaser require further investigation. The Commission will conduct such assessment separately and after the adoption of the Decision. The Commission has nevertheless taken into account the assets/capabilities of BASF, as the proposed Purchaser, in the assessment of the Final Commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(145)

6.1.1.   
  The Broad Acre Divestment Businesses

| (146) | The Final Commitments on the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses entail the divestiture by Bayer of its entire global broad acre crop seeds and traits business (including research activities), subject to certain limited carve-outs. |
| --- | --- |

(146)

| (147) | The Broad Acre Divestment Businesses also includes key personnel and a number of transitional services agreements to be provided by Bayer to BASF. |
| --- | --- |

(147)

| (148) | The Commission considers that the Final Commitments, by requiring Bayer to divest the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses, will remove the horizontal overlaps in all the broad acre crop seeds and broad acre crop traits markets where the Commission has identified competition concerns. The divestiture of the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses will also ensure that Monsanto's dominant position in broad acre crop traits markets is not further strengthened. Finally, the divestiture of Bayer's trait research activities will also address the concerns identified by the Commission in regard to innovation competition. |
| --- | --- |

(148)

6.1.2.   
  The GA Divestment Business and Glyphosate Assets

| (149) | The GA Divestment Business is Bayer's full global glufosinate business, without carve-outs. It includes all tangible and intangible assets and personnel, including 15 Key Personnel. A number of transitional and longer-term supply agreements are put in place to ensure its viability and competitiveness from day one and in the longer term. |
| --- | --- |

(149)

| (150) | The Glyphosate Assets include all of Bayer's current and forthcoming glyphosate (agricultural and non-agricultural) non-selective herbicides in the EEA only (Bayer retains these products outside the EEA). They include all relevant personnel, including 6 Key Personnel. They do not include production assets, but a number of transitional and longer-term supply agreements are put in place to ensure their viability and competitiveness from day one and in the longer term. |
| --- | --- |

(150)

| (151) | The GA Divestment Business and Glyphosate Assets remove the entire overlap between the Parties' existing glyphosate and glufosinate products in (agricultural and non-agricultural) non-selective herbicides in the EEA, and address the Commission's concerns in agricultural and non-agricultural non-selective herbicides in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(151)

6.1.3.   
  The Seed Treatment Assets
   (5)

| (152) | The Seed Treatment Assets include in particular the assets necessary to enable the global divestment of Bayer's Poncho, VOTiVO, Poncho/VOTiVO, VOTiVO/RedigoM, VOTiVO 2.0, Poncho/VOTiVO 2.0, COPeO, and ILeVO seed treatment businesses and pipeline product to BASF. The Seed Treatment Assets include, but are not limited to, intellectual property rights, all data and know-how, all product registrations and pending regulatory submissions, sales and marketing assets, and contracts specific to the Seed Treatment Assets. Bayer also commits to supply BASF these products at variable cost for a limited period of time (until BASF can establish an alternative source of production). |
| --- | --- |

(152)

| (153) | The Final Commitments on the Seed Treatment Assets will eliminate the horizontal overlaps between the Parties' respective activities with regards to nematicidal seed treatment and hence will address the Commission's concerns. |
| --- | --- |

(153)

6.1.4.   
  The [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3] Data Transfers and Licences

| (154) | The objective of the [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3] Data Transfers and Licences is to replicate the competitive position held by Bayer absent the Transaction in innovation for non-selective herbicides and HT System (in combination with the divestiture of Bayer's traits research organisation as part of the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses). |
| --- | --- |

(154)

| (155) | The [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3] Data Transfers and Licences include field data and know-how as well as an exclusive licence for applications in non-selective herbicides. They include one to two lead scientists as Key Personnel for each line of research, as well as the option for BASF to offer employment to an additional three Bayer employees – to be considered Key Personnel – working on any of the three lines of research. |
| --- | --- |

(155)

| (156) | The [NSH lines of research 1, 2 and 3] Data Transfers and Licences address the Commission's concerns in innovation for non-selective herbicides and HT Systems (in combination with the divestiture of Bayer's traits research organisation as part of the Broad Acre Divestment Businesses and supply agreements for isoxaflutole). |
| --- | --- |

(156)

6.1.5.   
  Digital Agriculture Assets
   (6)

| (157) | The objective of the divestment of Bayer' Digital Agriculture Assets is to enable BASF to replicate the competitive position held by Bayer absent the Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(157)

| (158) | The Final Commitment comprises a full divestment to BASF of Bayer's digital agriculture business worldwide, with a limited licence back to Bayer outside of North America. |
| --- | --- |

(158)

6.2.   Vegetable Seeds Package

| (159) | The Vegetable Seeds Divestment Business consists of Bayer's global vegetable seeds business, including legal entities, sites, assets, brands, employees/key personnel, customer lists, etc. with limited carve-outs. |
| --- | --- |

(159)

| (160) | One of the criteria for the Purchaser is that the Purchaser is a new entrant, i.e. does not already control (directly or indirectly) any vegetable seeds business. This criterion will ensure the same number of players as before the Transaction in vegetable seeds markets. |
| --- | --- |

(160)

| (161) | The divestiture of the Vegetable Seeds Divestment Business therefore removes the horizontal overlaps between the activities of Bayer and Monsanto in relation to vegetable seeds. The Commission also considers the Vegetable Seeds Divestment Business to be a viable and competitive business. There has been interest expressed from potential purchasers. |
| --- | --- |

(161)

7.   CONCLUSION

| (162) | For the reasons mentioned above, the Decision concludes that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(162)

| (163) | Consequently the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(163)

---

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

(2)  OJ C 286, 30.8.2017, p. 1.

(3)  Commission Decision of 11.4.2018 amending commitments in Case M.8084 — Bayer/Monsanto, C(2018) 2208 final.

(4)  On 11 April 2018, the Commission approved Bayer's request to modify the commitments as regards crop protection (seed treatment) and digital agriculture (see paragraph 7).

(5)  The description of the Seed Treatment Assets reflects the modified Final Commitments as approved by the Commission on 11 April 2018 (see paragraph 7).

(6)  The description of the Digital Agriculture Assets reflects the modified Final Commitments as approved by the Commission on 11 April 2018 (see paragraph 7).

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/24

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 11 December 2018

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

(2018/C 459/11)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

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

Whereas:

| (1) | Hungary has sent an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification of ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ (PGI) in accordance with Article 49(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. The changes include a change of name from ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ to ‘Gönci kajszibarack’/‘Gönci kajszi’. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Hungary has sent an application for approval of an amendment, which is not minor, to the product specification of ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ (PGI) in accordance with Article 49(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. The changes include a change of name from ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ to ‘Gönci kajszibarack’/‘Gönci kajszi’.

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

(2)

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

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

(3)

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

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

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

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

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2018.

For the Commission

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

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

2

---

ANNEX

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

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

‘Gönci kajszibarack’

EU No: PGI-HU-0388-AM01 – 11.4.2017

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

1.   Applicant group and legitimate interest

| Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítő Kft. |
| --- |
| Külterület 068/8 HRSZ. |
| 3885 Boldogkőváralja |
| MAGYARORSZÁG/HUNGARY |
| Tel. | +36 46587477 |
| Fax | +36 46587478 |
| Email: | info@gyumolcsert.com |

Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítő Kft.

Külterület 068/8 HRSZ.

3885 Boldogkőváralja

MAGYARORSZÁG/HUNGARY

Tel.

+36 46587477

Fax

+36 46587478

Email:

info@gyumolcsert.com

The cooperative that drew up the product specification, Abaúj-Gönc Szövetkezet, went into liquidation on 20 March 2013. For that reason, Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítő Szervezet, the main producer organisation for the region's apricot producers, took over the administrative and practical tasks associated with the protected product. Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítő Kft has more than 70 apricot-producing members and sells some 1 500–2 000 tonnes of apricots from the production region each year.

2.   Member State or Third Country

Hungary

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

| — | ☒ | Product name |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☒ | Product description |
| — | ☐ | Geographical area |
| — | ☒ | Proof of origin |
| — | ☒ | Method of production |
| — | ☐ | Link |
| — | ☒ | Labelling |
| — | ☒ | Other: Inspection system, inspection body |

—

☒

Product name

—

☒

Product description

—

☐

Geographical area

—

☒

Proof of origin

—

☒

Method of production

—

☐

Link

—

☒

Labelling

—

☒

Other: Inspection system, inspection body

4.   Type of amendment(s)

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

—

☒

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

—

☐

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

5.   Amendment(s)

Point 1 of the specification currently in force

The shorter but equally widespread and commonly used name ‘Gönci kajszi’ is added to the product name ‘Gönci kajszibarack’. The name ‘Gönci kajszi’ is therefore added wherever ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ is referred to in the specification.

‘Gönci kajszi’ is also a popular, well-known name used in trade to denote apricots originating from the Gönc region.

Under the proposed amendment, the name ‘Gönci kajszi’ is also added to the name in point 4.1 of the summary (OJ C 247, 14.9.2010) and to all references to the name ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ in the single document replacing the summary.

Point 2 of the current specification (‘Description of the product’), and point 3.2 of the single document

The following (second) paragraph:

‘The protected geographical indication (PGI) “Gönci kajszibarack” may be used for the following varieties of Prunus armeniaca L.: Gönci magyar kajszi, Magyar kajszi C 235, Mandulakajszi, Bergeron, Ceglédi Piroska, Ceglédi bíborkajszi, Ceglédi arany, Ceglédi óriás and Pannónia.’

is to be replaced by:

‘The protected geographical indication (PGI) “Gönci kajszibarack”/“Gönci kajszi” may be used for the following varieties of Prunus armeniaca L.: Gönci magyar kajszi, Magyar kajszi C 235, Mandulakajszi, Bergeron, Ceglédi Piroska, Ceglédi bíborkajszi, Ceglédi arany, Ceglédi óriás and Pannónia. It may also be used for all other apricot varieties grown in the production area whose main physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics meet the quality of the apricot varieties listed above.’

Thanks to improvements in plant breeding over the past decade, varieties that are more disease-resistant have entered cultivation. Among these, it was justified to include varieties that have the chemical, physical and organoleptic characteristics set out in the product specification. The results of laboratory tests on new varieties confirm that the taste and aroma of ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ / ‘Gönci kajszi’ are derived from the production area's specific microclimate. In terms of their sugar and acid content, the varieties produced here are of a higher quality than those of the same varieties grown elsewhere in Hungary.

Point 2.1 of the current specification (Main physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics) and point 3.2 of the single document

Point 2.1 of the current specification (Main physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics) and point 3.2 of the single document

The following (second) paragraph:

‘A sorting template used in commerce is applied for measurement. The average weight in grams of a fruit is more or less identical to its diameter in millimetres.’

is to be replaced by:

‘Size is determined by measuring the maximum equatorial diameter.’

The second sentence of the paragraph is deleted. The reason for the proposed amendment is to reflect differences in shape and weight between varieties within the same size range.

The sentence in the specification, thus amended, and the following sentence in the specification (paragraph 4): ‘The sugar content is specified together with an indication of the percentage ripeness; flavours and taste are determined by organoleptic testing, taking into account the differences in acidity by variety (0,9–2,2 vol. %).’ are added to point 4.2 of the summary, as well as to point 3.2 of the single document replacing it, which is then supplemented as follows:

‘Size is determined by measuring the maximum equatorial diameter.

The sugar content is specified together with an indication of the percentage ripeness; flavours and taste are determined by organoleptic testing, taking into account the differences in acidity by variety (0,9–2,2 vol. %).’

Point 2.2 of the current specification (Key requirements to be met by the product), and point 3.5 of the single document

Point 2.2 of the current specification (Key requirements to be met by the product), and point 3.5 of the single document

The following (second) paragraph:

‘The quality categories must meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 851/2000 as amended, but with the following – stricter – permitted deviations’

is to be replaced by:

‘The quality classes are as follows:’

The purpose of the amendment is to delete the reference to the repealed regulation from the specification.

Since point 2.2 of the specification contains mainly packaging requirements, it has been added, at the applicant's request, to point 3.5 of the single document (second to fifth paragraphs). These requirements were not explicitly stated in the summary, but they were already included in the specification.

Point 4 of the current specification (Proof of origin from a geographical area)

Point 4 of the current specification (Proof of origin from a geographical area)

The following paragraphs:

‘The quality control system of the entire cultivation and handling process ensures identification and traceability as well as final checking and product safety, with the producers placing the hand-picked fruit in plastic or wooden crates on which the origin of the fruit is specifically indicated (by name) on a label, supplemented with an identification number on the bottom of the crates.

Producers are obliged to keep a Protection of Origin Log to document production in accordance with relevant regulations. The Log records:

| — | the name and identification of the producer; |
| --- | --- |

—

the name and identification of the producer;

| — | the location of production, the land registry number, the identification code of the variety/field, the number of trees already bearing fruit and of those not yet producing; |
| --- | --- |

—

the location of production, the land registry number, the identification code of the variety/field, the number of trees already bearing fruit and of those not yet producing;

| — | the name and origin of the variety (supported by a certificate of origin of the sapling); |
| --- | --- |

—

the name and origin of the variety (supported by a certificate of origin of the sapling);

| — | the identification number of the Spraying Log; |
| --- | --- |

—

the identification number of the Spraying Log;

| — | the identification number of the Harvest Log, the date of harvest, the quantities of fruit in the given year aggregated by variety/field. |
| --- | --- |

—

the identification number of the Harvest Log, the date of harvest, the quantities of fruit in the given year aggregated by variety/field.

The Spraying Log is a record kept as prescribed by law in which the following is entered:

| — | chemicals used in the course of cultivation; |
| --- | --- |

—

chemicals used in the course of cultivation;

| — | the quantities of chemicals used/applied (broken down by date of application); |
| --- | --- |

—

the quantities of chemicals used/applied (broken down by date of application);

| — | the name and dates of the plant-health procedures applied, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

the name and dates of the plant-health procedures applied, etc.

The Harvest Log is a record kept during harvest specifying the number of productive trees by variety/field, the day of harvest and the daily quantities harvested.’

are amended as follows:

‘To identify the production area, the producer organisation (Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítő Szervezet) keeps a list of the producers and suppliers of “Gönci kajszibarack” / “Gönci kajszi”. This list identifies the producer members' production areas. The producers, or the marketing organisation, must have a system for tracking product, from cultivation to marketing.

The product's identity is determined by identifying the producer when the product is handed over, the producer also being required to hand over the Spraying Log for each batch. The labelling and traceability of the product is ensured by means of a batch number marked with a barcode; this number traces the various production processes, from cultivation, through hand-over, storage, grading, packaging and delivery, to marketing. The batch number must be recorded in the Production Log during each of these processes. The batch number of the final product for delivery must always be quoted in delivery notes.’

The section of the specification on proof of origin is being changed to reflect the fact that nowadays origin can be proved using modern IT tracking systems. The system used guarantees traceability from the production area all the way to the consumer.

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements] Section on seeds and plants

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements]

The following (second) sentence:

‘To prevent apoplexy disease, improved varieties should be grafted onto rootstocks that are resistant to such diseases (e.g. wild apricot saplings, myrobalan plum saplings or other plum rootstocks, etc.).’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘To prevent apoplexy disease, improved varieties should be grafted onto rootstocks that are less sensitive to such diseases (e.g. wild apricot, peach or plum rootstocks).’

To ensure the sustainability of plantations, we recommend bringing apricot rootstocks into line with modern-day propagation techniques.

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements] Section on dimensions

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements]

The following (first) sentence:

‘The optimum growth area of an apricot tree is 7 × 4 metres; its crown may be columnar with grouped branches, vase-shaped or umbrella-shaped.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘The optimum growing space of an apricot tree is 7 × 4,6 m, 7 × 4,5 m or 7 × 3,5 m, depending on the type of plantation; its crown may be columnar with grouped branches, vase-shaped or umbrella-shaped.’

To increase efficiency, planting density based on more intensive cultivation techniques is widespread in the production area: 7 × 4,6 m, 7 × 4,5 m or 7 × 3,5 m. Density has no effect on the quality of the product.

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements] Supply of nutrients and fertilisers

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements]

The following (second) paragraph:

‘The conditions of nutrient management should be established at planting or before the trees become productive. During the productive years, the plantation requires many nutrients; to satisfy this, the soil's nutrient supply capability has to be maintained by regular tilling. The yield-increasing effect of this will be optimised through the combined use of manure and fertilisers.’

is amended as follows (by adding one sentence):

‘The conditions of nutrient management should be established at planting or before the trees become productive. During the productive years, the plantation requires many nutrients; to satisfy this, the soil's nutrient supply capability has to be maintained by regular tilling. The yield-increasing effect of this will be optimised through the combined use of manure and fertilisers. The degree of fertilisation is determined in an environmentally sound manner, taking account of the results of soil and/or leaf analysis.’

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements] Section on water and irrigation requirements

Point 5.1 of the specification currently in force [Cultivation (and tending) criteria and requirements]

The following (first) sentence:

‘Most apricot plantations' water requirements are covered by natural precipitation.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘An increasing proportion of apricot plantations meet their water requirement through an irrigation system developed alongside natural precipitation.’

There have been changes to good practice for fertilisation and water supply for the sake of environmental protection and sustainability.

Point 5.2 of the current specification (Harvesting)

Point 5.2 of the current specification (Harvesting)

The following (first) sentence:

‘Harvest begins in mid-June and lasts until late August.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘Harvest begins in mid-June and lasts until late August (possibly extending into September in extreme weather conditions).’

The purpose of the amendment is to bring the sentence into line with current practice.

The last indent of the subheading ‘Regulations to be complied with in the course of harvesting’:

Regulations to be complied with in the course of harvesting

| ‘— | picking stands must be provided for picking fruit, and care must also be taken when loading the fruit into storage containers to prevent crushing (the quality requirements concerning apricots are laid out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 851/2000 and amendments thereto)’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

picking stands must be provided for picking fruit, and care must also be taken when loading the fruit into storage containers to prevent crushing (the quality requirements concerning apricots are laid out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 851/2000 and amendments thereto)’

is to be replaced by:

| ‘— | picking stands must be provided for picking fruit, and care must also be taken when loading the fruit into storage containers to prevent crushing.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

picking stands must be provided for picking fruit, and care must also be taken when loading the fruit into storage containers to prevent crushing.’

The purpose of the amendment is to delete the reference to the repealed regulation from the specification.

The second sentence of the paragraph following the subheading ‘Regulations to be complied with in the course of harvesting’:

‘The label on the crate and the identification number at the base specify the location and plantation each fruit in the refrigerated storage facility came from.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘An internal tracking system indicates precisely the location and plantation each fruit in the refrigerated storage facility came from.’

The purpose of the amendment is to bring the sentence into line with the changes to point 4 (Proof of origin from the geographical area).

Point 5.3 of the current specification (Storage), and point 3.5 of the single document

Point 5.3 of the current specification (Storage), and point 3.5 of the single document

The following (first) sentence:

‘As soon as the storage chamber is filled with the crates supplied, the fruit is cooled to an approx. 4 °C (storage) temperature within the space of a few hours.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘As soon as the storage chamber is filled with the crates supplied, the fruit is cooled to an approx. 6-8 °C (storage) temperature within the space of a few hours.’

The following (third) sentence:

‘After selection and final packaging, the fruit crates are placed in a 4-6 °C refrigerated storage unit for up to 30 days, depending on deliveries.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘After selection and final packaging, the fruit crates are placed in a 1-6 °C refrigerated storage unit for up to 30 days, depending on deliveries.’

Changes have been made to the temperatures for cooling based on current technological requirements.

This sentence has been added, at the applicant's request, to point 3.5 of the single document, becoming its sixth paragraph. It was not explicitly stated in the summary, but it was already included in the specification.

Point 5.4 of the current specification (Grading and packaging) and point 3.5 of the single document

Point 5.4 of the current specification (Grading and packaging) and point 3.5 of the single document

The following (first) paragraph:

‘Grading by size is carried out using a manual grading plate. The size of the apricot is determined by measuring the maximum equatorial diameter as specified in Regulation (EC) No 851/2000, as amended. Grading by size is mandatory.’

is to be replaced by:

‘Grading by size is carried out using a manual grading plate or a grading machine. The size of the apricot is determined by measuring the maximum equatorial diameter. Grading by size is mandatory.’

The purpose of the amendment is to bring this section into line with current practice and to delete the reference to the repealed regulation from the specification. This paragraph has been removed from the summary and is not included in the single document replacing the summary.

The following (second) paragraph is deleted:

‘The packaging and presentation of “Gönci kajszibarack” / “Gönci kajszi” also follow the rules of Regulation (EC) No 851/2000 and amendments thereto, and additional markings to be displayed beyond that are specified in section 8 of the product specification.’

The purpose of the amendment is to delete the reference to the repealed regulation from the specification.

The second sentence of the following (third) paragraph:

‘The buyer's requirements define the presentation of the product: from the 1 kg plastic tray to 10 kg crates. The packaging unit for bulk products is the internationally accepted M10 10 kg crate.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘The buyer's requirements define the presentation of the product: the weight of the packaging units ranges between 0,3 kg and 10 kg.’

The reason for the changes to the section on grading and packaging is to bring it into line with market conventions and consumer demands.

At the applicant's request, the third paragraph of this point of the specification (beginning ‘The fruits of the “Extra” quality class’) has been added to point 3.5 of the single document (becoming its seventh paragraph), and the fourth paragraph of this point of the specification (beginning ‘“Gönci kajszibarack” / “Gönci kajszi” is sensitive to mechanical damage’) has also become part of point 3.5 of the single document (its first paragraph). These requirements were not explicitly stated in the summary, but they were already included in the specification.

Point 5.5 of the current specification (Transport)

Point 5.5 of the current specification (Transport)

The following (second) sentence of the second paragraph:

‘The degrees of ripeness are usually established by colour but organoleptic checks (tasting, checking for firmness of flesh) may also be of use.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘The degrees of ripeness are primarily established by colour, but organoleptic and laboratory tests (tasting and determining firmness of flesh, dry matter content and acidity) may also be of use.’

The purpose of the amendment is to bring the sentence into line with current practice.

The last sentence of the paragraph:

‘Only fruit of the same variety, quality and packaging (units) may and must be placed on the pallets to be delivered, complete with markings of protection of origin.’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘Only varieties with the same external appearance, quality and packaging (units) may and must be placed on the pallets to be delivered, ensuring their traceability.’

The purpose of the amendment is to make the wording clearer and to delete the unclear reference to ‘markings of protection of origin’.

Point 6 of the current specification (‘Link between the product and the geographical area’)

Point 6 of the current specification (‘Link between the product and the geographical area’)

The following (second) paragraph:

‘The “magyar kajszi” Hungarian apricot variety group (variety type) has been and still is produced almost exclusively in this region and probably began to evolve some 300-350 years ago. Its most outstanding version, the Hungarian Gönc apricot, which was granted recognition in its own right in 1960, had become the dominant variety of the production area by the 20th century. In recent decades the local range of varieties has been supplemented primarily by newer Hungarian apricot varieties, some from among the best domestic regional varieties, others from new domestic hybrids, in some 25 variations.’

is to be replaced by:

‘To this day, the “magyar kajszi” Hungarian apricot varietal group (varietal type) is grown in abundance in this region and probably began to evolve some 300-350 years ago. Its most outstanding version, the Hungarian Gönc apricot, which was granted recognition in its own right in 1960, had become the dominant variety of the production area by the 20th century. In recent decades the local range of varieties has been supplemented primarily by newer Hungarian and naturalised apricot varieties, some from among the best domestic regional varieties, others from new domestic hybrids, in some 40 variations.’

The reason for this amendment is the possibility to add new varieties for cultivation, as referred to in point 2 of the specification.

Point 7 of the current specification (Inspection body)

Point 7 of the current specification (Inspection body)

The name of the state inspection body has been changed to the name of the competent supervisory body under the current rules.

Point 8 of the current specification (Labelling)

Point 8 of the current specification (Labelling)

The following (second) sentence:

‘Such labelling must be placed on each packaging unit; optionally, the place name where the product was actually produced may also appear on the packaging.

For example:

| “Gönci kajszibarack”
  Protected Geographical Indication
  Varietal group: Gönci magyar kajszi
  Produced in: Abaújvár’ |
| --- |

“Gönci kajszibarack”

Protected Geographical Indication

Varietal group: Gönci magyar kajszi

Produced in: Abaújvár’

is hereby amended as follows:

‘Such labelling must be placed on each packaging unit.’

The example following that sentence is deleted.

The reference to the municipalities where the apricot is produced has been withdrawn. The conditions for growing ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ / ‘Gönci kajszi’ are identical throughout the Gönc region, yielding a product with the same external appearance and intrinsic parameters. Listing the names of municipalities on the packaging therefore provides consumers with no extra information.

Other: Control system

Other: Control system

The original specification did not contain any description of the inspection system. Since it is particularly important to manage information on the protected product and to protect the product's origin, a new inspection system has been developed.

‘Minimum requirements for verifying the product's essential features and production method:

| Essential feature | Minimum requirements | Method and frequency of inspections |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Place of production | Must be cultivated within the production area | Annual review of the list of suppliers of “Gönci kajszi” kept by Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítői Szervezet |
| Cultivation | The cultivation criteria must be met | At least one on-the-spot check per year; checking the farming log (if any) at least once per year |
| Crop protection | The techniques devised by Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítői Szervezet must be adhered to | Inspecting the spraying logs before shipping. Taking a random product sample for residue testing |
| Harvest | Traceability must be ensured | Annual review of the list of suppliers of “Gönci kajszi” kept by Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítői Szervezet.
  Annual inspection of product receipt documentation |
| Preparation of the product | Traceability must be ensured | Annual check to ensure a production log is being kept’ |

Essential feature

Minimum requirements

Method and frequency of inspections

Place of production

Must be cultivated within the production area

Annual review of the list of suppliers of “Gönci kajszi” kept by Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítői Szervezet

Cultivation

The cultivation criteria must be met

At least one on-the-spot check per year; checking the farming log (if any) at least once per year

Crop protection

The techniques devised by Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítői Szervezet must be adhered to

Inspecting the spraying logs before shipping. Taking a random product sample for residue testing

Harvest

Traceability must be ensured

Annual review of the list of suppliers of “Gönci kajszi” kept by Gyümölcsért Termelői Értékesítői Szervezet.

Annual inspection of product receipt documentation

Preparation of the product

Traceability must be ensured

Annual check to ensure a production log is being kept’

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘Gönci kajszibarack’/‘Gönci kajszi’

‘Gönci kajszibarack’/‘Gönci kajszi’

EU No: PGI-HU-0388-AM01 – 11.4.2017

EU No: PGI-HU-0388-AM01 – 11.4.2017

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

1.   Name(s)

Name(s)

‘Gönci kajszibarack’/‘Gönci kajszi’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Member State or Third Country

Hungary

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Type of product

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

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

Description of the product to which the name in 1 applies

The protected geographical indication (PGI) ‘Gönci kajszibarack’/‘Gönci kajszi’ may be used for the following varieties of Prunus armeniaca L.: Gönci magyar kajszi, Magyar kajszi C 235, Mandulakajszi, Bergeron, Ceglédi Piroska, Ceglédi bíborkajszi, Ceglédi arany, Ceglédi óriás and Pannónia. It may also be used for all other apricot varieties grown in the production area whose main physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics meet the quality of the apricot varieties listed above.

Prunus armeniaca

The uniqueness and nationwide and international reputation of ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ / ‘Gönci kajszi’ originate from a combination of favourable climatic conditions, horticultural/fruit cultivation traditions and strict adherence to production, harvesting, storage and transport techniques.

Main physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics

Main physical, chemical and organoleptic characteristics

The PGI ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ / ‘Gönci kajszi’ may be used only for apricot varieties that meet the following parameters and, with respect to the various varieties, possess the internal and external qualities listed below.

Gönci magyar kajszi

Gönci magyar kajszi

| Shape | : | spherical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | medium, minimum diameter 40 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | bright orange; bright red on the sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | golden yellow, finely fibrous, succulent and soft when ripe |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acidic, aromatic |

Shape

:

spherical

Measurements

:

medium, minimum diameter 40 mm

Colour of skin

:

bright orange; bright red on the sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

golden yellow, finely fibrous, succulent and soft when ripe

Flavour, acidity

:

acidic, aromatic

Magyar kajszi c.235

Magyar kajszi c.235

| Shape | : | spherical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | medium, minimum diameter 40 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | bright orange |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | yellow, fibrous, medium-hard |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acidic, aromatic |

Shape

:

spherical

Measurements

:

medium, minimum diameter 40 mm

Colour of skin

:

bright orange

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

yellow, fibrous, medium-hard

Flavour, acidity

:

acidic, aromatic

Mandulakajszi

Mandulakajszi

| Shape | : | markedly elongated, almond-shaped, with marked lateral flattening |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | large, minimum diameter 50 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | light orange; carmine on the sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | light orange, medium-hard, dense, succulent |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acidic, spicy aroma |

Shape

:

markedly elongated, almond-shaped, with marked lateral flattening

Measurements

:

large, minimum diameter 50 mm

Colour of skin

:

light orange; carmine on the sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

light orange, medium-hard, dense, succulent

Flavour, acidity

:

acidic, spicy aroma

Bergeron

Bergeron

| Shape | : | slightly elongated, conical sphere, ovoid |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | medium, minimum diameter 40 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | orange; carmine on the sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | shiny orange, fibrous, hard |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acid content higher than average (1,4 %) |

Shape

:

slightly elongated, conical sphere, ovoid

Measurements

:

medium, minimum diameter 40 mm

Colour of skin

:

orange; carmine on the sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

shiny orange, fibrous, hard

Flavour, acidity

:

acid content higher than average (1,4 %)

Pannónia

Pannónia

| Shape | : | regular or slightly egg-shaped |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | medium, minimum diameter 40 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | light orange; pink on the sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | light orange, fibrous, hard |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acid, aromatic |

Shape

:

regular or slightly egg-shaped

Measurements

:

medium, minimum diameter 40 mm

Colour of skin

:

light orange; pink on the sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

light orange, fibrous, hard

Flavour, acidity

:

acid, aromatic

Ceglédi piroska

Ceglédi piroska

| Shape | : | spherical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | medium, minimum diameter 40 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | orange; bright red on the sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | orange, hard |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acidic |

Shape

:

spherical

Measurements

:

medium, minimum diameter 40 mm

Colour of skin

:

orange; bright red on the sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

orange, hard

Flavour, acidity

:

acidic

Ceglédi bíborkajszi

Ceglédi bíborkajszi

| Shape | : | wide, conical, egg-shaped; slight lateral flattening |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | medium, minimum diameter 40 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | dark orange; dark crimson on the sunny side |
| colour and consistency of flesh | : | dark orange, juicy |
| Flavour, acidity | : | sweet, aromatic |

Shape

:

wide, conical, egg-shaped; slight lateral flattening

Measurements

:

medium, minimum diameter 40 mm

Colour of skin

:

dark orange; dark crimson on the sunny side

colour and consistency of flesh

:

dark orange, juicy

Flavour, acidity

:

sweet, aromatic

Ceglédi arany

Ceglédi arany

| Shape | : | spherical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | large, minimum diameter 50 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | golden yellow; carmine on sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | orange, hard, succulent |
| Flavour, acidity | : | acidic |

Shape

:

spherical

Measurements

:

large, minimum diameter 50 mm

Colour of skin

:

golden yellow; carmine on sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

orange, hard, succulent

Flavour, acidity

:

acidic

Ceglédi óriás

Ceglédi óriás

| Shape | : | slightly elongated, egg-shaped; slight lateral flattening |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Measurements | : | large, minimum diameter 50 mm |
| Colour of skin | : | light orange; bright red on the sunny side |
| Colour and consistency of flesh | : | orange, moderately succulent, soft |
| Flavour, acidity | : | sweet and acidic, aromatic |

Shape

:

slightly elongated, egg-shaped; slight lateral flattening

Measurements

:

large, minimum diameter 50 mm

Colour of skin

:

light orange; bright red on the sunny side

Colour and consistency of flesh

:

orange, moderately succulent, soft

Flavour, acidity

:

sweet and acidic, aromatic

Size is determined by measuring the maximum equatorial diameter.

The sugar content is specified together with an indication of the percentage ripeness; flavours and taste are determined by organoleptic testing, taking into account the differences in acidity by variety (0,9–2,2 vol. %).

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

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

—

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

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

The entire production process takes place within the geographical area.

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

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

‘Gönci kajszibarack’ / ‘Gönci kajszi’ is sensitive to mechanical damage; transporting it unpackaged will significantly affect its organoleptic, physical and chemical characteristics, to the point of making it impossible to package at a later stage. Consequently, in an effort to guarantee product quality and – since it is not a processed agricultural product – to ensure the place of origin, traceability and control, packaging must be performed within the specified geographical area.

All units for the packaging of fruit intended for consumption which are certified as originating in the defined area of production within the geographical area must be uniform, with fruit of the same origin and variety, quality and — with the exception of lots packaged/delivered in bulk — of the same size; The lower limit of the diameter is 30 mm, and 35 mm for the ‘Extra’ quality class.

Tolerances in respect of quality and size are allowed in each package for produce not satisfying the requirements for the class indicated.

The quality classes are as follows:

| — | ‘Extra’ class: 2,5 % by number or weight of apricots not satisfying the requirements of the ‘Extra’ class, but meeting those of Class I or, in exceptional cases, coming within the tolerances of that class. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Extra’ class: 2,5 % by number or weight of apricots not satisfying the requirements of the ‘Extra’ class, but meeting those of Class I or, in exceptional cases, coming within the tolerances of that class.

| — | Class I: 5 % by number or weight of apricots not satisfying the requirements of Class I, but meeting those of Class II or, in exceptional cases, coming within the tolerances of that class. |
| --- | --- |

—

Class I: 5 % by number or weight of apricots not satisfying the requirements of Class I, but meeting those of Class II or, in exceptional cases, coming within the tolerances of that class.

The fruit must be whole, healthy, picked carefully and sufficiently developed and mature; they must be clean and practically free of any visible foreign body. They must not be affected by rotting or other deterioration such as to make them unfit for consumption. They must also be practically free from pests and damage caused by pests, abnormal external moisture and any foreign smell and/or taste.

After selection and final packaging, the fruit crates are placed in a 1-6 °C refrigerated storage unit for up to 30 days, depending on the frequency of deliveries.

The fruits of the ‘Extra’ quality class may be marketed only in small packs, in one or more separated layers, arranged in rows, while the products of Class I may be either packaged in the same way or sold loose. The buyer's requirements define the presentation of the product: The weight of the packing units ranges between 0,3 kg and 10 kg.

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

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

In addition to the requirements prescribed by law, the labelling must contain the following:

| — | the name ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ or ‘Gönci kajszi’ |
| --- | --- |

—

the name ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ or ‘Gönci kajszi’

| — | the indication ‘oltalom alatt álló földrajzi jelzés’ [protected geographical indication] or ‘OFJ’ [PGI] and the corresponding EU symbol. |
| --- | --- |

—

the indication ‘oltalom alatt álló földrajzi jelzés’ [protected geographical indication] or ‘OFJ’ [PGI] and the corresponding EU symbol.

Such labelling must be placed on each packaging unit.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Concise definition of the geographical area

The designation of geographical origin can be used only for apricots originating from and grown in the following municipalities of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County:

Abaúj-Hegyköz sub-region: Abaújszántó, Abaújvár, Arka, Boldogkőváralja, Gönc, Göncruszka, Hejce, Hernádcéce, Hidasnémeti, Korlát, Tornyosnémeti, Vizsoly, Zsujta;

Abaúj-Hegyköz sub-region

Encs sub-region: Abaújkér, Alsógagy, Baktakék, Beret, Detek, Encs, Fancsal, Forró, Fulókércs, Garadna, Ináncs;

Encs sub-region

Szerencs sub-region: Bekecs, Golop, Legyesbénye, Megyaszó, Monok, Rátka, Szerencs, Tállya;

Szerencs sub-region

Szikszó sub-region: Alsóvadász, Felsővadász, Hernádkércs, Homrogd, Léh, Nagykinizs, Selyeb, Szentistvánbaksa, Szikszó.

Szikszó sub-region

5.   Link with the geographical area

Link with the geographical area

The ‘Gönci kajszibarack’ / ‘Gönci kajszi’ is a typical product from Hungary's northernmost fruit-growing region. It is grown on the hillsides, terraces and plains of the Hegyalja region along the river Hernád and in Szerencs and Cserehát, at 150-300 m above sea level.

To this day, the ‘magyar kajszi’ Hungarian apricot varietal group (varietal type) is grown in abundance in this region and probably began to evolve some 300-350 years ago. Its most outstanding version, the Hungarian Gönc apricot, which was granted recognition in its own right in 1960, had become the dominant variety of this region by the 20th century. In recent decades the local range of varieties has been supplemented primarily by newer Hungarian and naturalised apricot varieties, some from among the best domestic regional varieties, others from new domestic hybrids, in some 40 variations.

The special features of the product and its cultivation in the Gönc region may be summarised as follows:

| — | the same variety of apricots, when produced here, ripen on average 6-10 days later than in the Kecskemét region, allowing the domestic consumption and processing season to be extended. |
| --- | --- |

—

the same variety of apricots, when produced here, ripen on average 6-10 days later than in the Kecskemét region, allowing the domestic consumption and processing season to be extended.

| — | The cooler mesoclimate – which causes the delayed ripening – also has a favourable effect on the consumption quality of the apricots: the refreshing acids and flavour substances decompose more slowly over the course of ripening; they do not ‘burn out’. ‘The quality of the apricots produced around Gönc is excellent. They ripen later here ... and the ripening period is further extended by the slopes of different exposures.’ (Brózik, Jenser et al, 1970). |
| --- | --- |

—

The cooler mesoclimate – which causes the delayed ripening – also has a favourable effect on the consumption quality of the apricots: the refreshing acids and flavour substances decompose more slowly over the course of ripening; they do not ‘burn out’. ‘The quality of the apricots produced around Gönc is excellent. They ripen later here ... and the ripening period is further extended by the slopes of different exposures.’ (Brózik, Jenser et al, 1970).

| — | This region has the most evenly cold winters in Hungary, and spring arrives here later in the year than in any other of the areas suitable for the planting of apricot orchards; for this reason, this is where the main threat to apricot production – the risk of frost damage to buds opened as a result of early warm spells in late winter, along with spring frost damage to buds, flowers or fruit in the initial phase of development – is lowest. |
| --- | --- |

—

This region has the most evenly cold winters in Hungary, and spring arrives here later in the year than in any other of the areas suitable for the planting of apricot orchards; for this reason, this is where the main threat to apricot production – the risk of frost damage to buds opened as a result of early warm spells in late winter, along with spring frost damage to buds, flowers or fruit in the initial phase of development – is lowest.

The name ‘kajszi Baraczk’ [‘apricot’] first appeared in 1667 in a book by János Lippay (Posoni kert [Bratislava Garden], vol. 3, ‘Gyümölcsös kert’ [Orchard], Vienna 1667), but it was only in the 1880s, with an outbreak of phylloxera devastating vineyards, that there was a fresh impetus to fruit production in hilly areas. The ruined vineyards were replaced in the Gönc region by an abundance of fruit trees, which have covered the slopes of the hills ever since.

In the second half of the 19th century various social organisations were established at county level in order to boost fruit production. Their cooperation played a key role in enabling the fruit of Zemplén County to win a gold medal at the 1867 World Fair in Paris. According to various national descriptions and statistics, up to the 1850s the Gönc region had been known primarily for its cherries. János Korponay first mentioned in 1871 that Gönc and its environs were famed for their apricots, which were then being produced in ‘fair quantities’. The real upswing in apricot production, however, only started in the 1880s-1890s.

Reference to publication of the specification

Reference to publication of the specification

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

http://elelmiszerlanc.kormany.hu/download/5/f6/c1000/17.pdf

---

Court of Auditors

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/37

---

Special Report No 33/2018

Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action

(2018/C 459/12)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 33/2018 ‘Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action’ has just been published.

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

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/37

---

Special Report No 35/2018

Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed

(2018/C 459/13)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 35/2018 ‘Transparency of EU funds implemented by NGOs: more effort needed’ has just been published.

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

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/38

---

Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1)

(2018/C 459/14)

The publication of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a monthly update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.

SLOVAKIA

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 37, 14.2.2009.

Section 1(1) of Implementing Decree No 499/2011 of the Slovak Ministry of the Interior on establishing the amount of financial resources required to cover the costs associated with a third-country national’s stay in the Slovak Republic sets the amount at EUR 56 per person per day.

The amount of EUR 56 comprises:

| | EUR 30 for accommodation; |
| --- | --- |

EUR 30 for accommodation;

| | EUR 4 for breakfast; |
| --- | --- |

EUR 4 for breakfast;

| | EUR 7,50 for lunch; |
| --- | --- |

EUR 7,50 for lunch;

| | EUR 7,50 for dinner; |
| --- | --- |

EUR 7,50 for dinner;

| | EUR 7 for spending money. |
| --- | --- |

EUR 7 for spending money.

If the costs of a third-country national’s stay in the Slovak Republic are partially covered, this circumstance will be taken into account at the border control.

The sum of EUR 56 per person per day may be replaced by a certified invitation as laid down in Section 19 of Act No 404/2011 on the residence of foreign nationals and amending other acts, as amended, or by a hosting agreement under Section 26b of Act No 172/2005 on the organisation of state aid for research and development, as amended.

List of previous publications

| | OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 19. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 19.

| | OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 22. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 22.

| | OJ C 182, 4.8.2007, p. 18. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 182, 4.8.2007, p. 18.

| | OJ C 57, 1.3.2008, p. 38. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 57, 1.3.2008, p. 38.

| | OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 19. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 19.

| | OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 8.

| | OJ C 35, 12.2.2010, p. 7. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 35, 12.2.2010, p. 7.

| | OJ C 304, 10.11.2010, p. 5. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 304, 10.11.2010, p. 5.

| | OJ C 24, 26.1.2011, p. 6. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 24, 26.1.2011, p. 6.

| | OJ C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 8.

| | OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 16. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 16.

| | OJ C 11, 13.1.2012, p. 13. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 11, 13.1.2012, p. 13.

| | OJ C 72, 10.3.2012, p. 44. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 72, 10.3.2012, p. 44.

| | OJ C 199, 7.7.2012, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 199, 7.7.2012, p. 8.

| | OJ C 298, 4.10.2012, p. 3. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 298, 4.10.2012, p. 3.

| | OJ C 56, 26.2.2013, p. 13. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 56, 26.2.2013, p. 13.

| | OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 3. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 3.

| | OJ C 269, 18.9.2013, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 269, 18.9.2013, p. 2.

| | OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 1. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 1.

| | OJ C 152, 20.5.2014, p. 25. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 152, 20.5.2014, p. 25.

| | OJ C 224, 15.7.2014, p. 31. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 224, 15.7.2014, p. 31.

| | OJ C 434, 4.12.2014, p. 3. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 434, 4.12.2014, p. 3.

| | OJ C 447, 13.12.2014, p. 32. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 447, 13.12.2014, p. 32.

| | OJ C 38, 4.2.2015, p. 20. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 38, 4.2.2015, p. 20.

| | OJ C 96, 11.3.2016, p. 7. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 96, 11.3.2016, p. 7.

| | OJ C 146, 26.4.2016, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 146, 26.4.2016, p. 12.

| | OJ C 248, 8.7.2016, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 248, 8.7.2016, p. 12.

| | OJ C 111, 8.4.2017, p. 11. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 111, 8.4.2017, p. 11.

| | OJ C 21, 20.1.2018, p. 3. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 21, 20.1.2018, p. 3.

| | OJ C 93, 12.3.2018, p. 4. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 93, 12.3.2018, p. 4.

| | OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 8.

| | OJ C 186, 31.5.2018, p. 10. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 186, 31.5.2018, p. 10.

| | OJ C 264, 26.7.2018, p. 6. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 264, 26.7.2018, p. 6.

| | OJ C 366, 10.10.2018, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 366, 10.10.2018, p. 12.

---

(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

---

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/40

---

Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1)

(2018/C 459/15)

The publication of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a regular update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.

GERMANY

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 32, 1.2.2017.

LIST OF BORDER CROSSING POINTS

Ports on the North Sea

| (1) | Baltrum |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Bensersiel |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Borkum |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Brake |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Bremen |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Bremerhaven |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Brunsbüttel |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Buxtehude |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Büsum |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Bützflether Sand |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Carolinensiel (Harlesiel) |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Cuxhaven |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | Eckwarderhörne |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | Elsfleth |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | Emden |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | Fedderwardersiel |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | Glückstadt |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | Greetsiel |
| --- | --- |

(18)

| (19) | Großensiel |
| --- | --- |

(19)

| (20) | Hamburg |
| --- | --- |

(20)

| (21) | Hamburg-Neuenfelde |
| --- | --- |

(21)

| (22) | Helgoland |
| --- | --- |

(22)

| (23) | Herbrum |
| --- | --- |

(23)

| (24) | Hooksiel |
| --- | --- |

(24)

| (25) | Horumersiel |
| --- | --- |

(25)

| (26) | Husum |
| --- | --- |

(26)

| (27) | Juist |
| --- | --- |

(27)

| (28) | Langeoog |
| --- | --- |

(28)

| (29) | Leer |
| --- | --- |

(29)

| (30) | Lemwerder |
| --- | --- |

(30)

| (31) | List/Sylt |
| --- | --- |

(31)

| (32) | Neuharlingersiel |
| --- | --- |

(32)

| (33) | Norddeich |
| --- | --- |

(33)

| (34) | Nordenham |
| --- | --- |

(34)

| (35) | Norderney |
| --- | --- |

(35)

| (36) | Otterndorf |
| --- | --- |

(36)

| (37) | Papenburg |
| --- | --- |

(37)

| (38) | Spiekeroog |
| --- | --- |

(38)

| (39) | Stade |
| --- | --- |

(39)

| (40) | Stadersand |
| --- | --- |

(40)

| (41) | Wangerooge |
| --- | --- |

(41)

| (42) | Varel |
| --- | --- |

(42)

| (43) | Wedel |
| --- | --- |

(43)

| (44) | Weener |
| --- | --- |

(44)

| (45) | Westeraccumersiel |
| --- | --- |

(45)

| (46) | Wewelsfleth |
| --- | --- |

(46)

| (47) | Wilhelmshaven |
| --- | --- |

(47)

Baltic ports

| (1) | Eckernförde (Hafenanlage der Bundesmarine) |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Flensburg Hafen |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Greifswald – Ladebow Hafen |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Jägersberg (Hafenanlagen der Bundesmarine) |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Kiel |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Kiel (Hafenanlagen der Bundesmarine) |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Kiel Holtenau |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Lubmin |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Lübeck |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Lübeck Travemünde |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Mukran |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Neustadt |
| --- | --- |

(12)

ODERHAFF

| (1) | Ueckermünde |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Airports, aerodromes, air fields

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN

| (1) | Helgoland Düne |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Hohn |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Kiel Holtenau |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Lübeck Blankensee |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Schleswig/Jagel |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Westerland/Sylt |
| --- | --- |

(6)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF MECKLENBURG - WESTERN POMERANIA

| (1) | Neubrandenburg Trollenhagen |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Rostock Laage |
| --- | --- |

(2)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF HAMBURG

| (1) | Hamburg |
| --- | --- |

(1)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF BREMEN

| (1) | Bremen |
| --- | --- |

(1)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF LOWER SAXONY

| (1) | Borkum |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Braunschweig Waggum |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Bückeburg Achum |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Celle |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Damme/Dümmer See |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Diepholz |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Emden |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Fassberg |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Ganderkesee |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Hannover |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Jever |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Leer Nüttermoor |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | Norderney |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | Nordholz |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | Nordhorn-Lingen |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | Osnabrück Atterheide |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | Wangerooge |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | Wilhelmshaven Mariensiel |
| --- | --- |

(18)

| (19) | Wittmundhafen |
| --- | --- |

(19)

| (20) | Wunstorf |
| --- | --- |

(20)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF BRANDENBURG

| (1) | Berlin-Schönefeld |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Schönhagen |
| --- | --- |

(2)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF BERLIN

| (1) | Berlin-Tegel |
| --- | --- |

(1)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF SAXONY-ANHALT

| (1) | Cochstedt |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Magdeburg |
| --- | --- |

(2)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF NORTH RHINE WESTPHALIA

| (1) | Aachen Merzbrück |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Arnsberg |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Bielefeld Windelsbleiche |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Bonn Hardthöhe |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Dortmund Wickede |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Düsseldorf |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Essen Mülheim |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Bonn Hangelar |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Köln/Bonn |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Marl/Loemühle |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Mönchengladbach |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Münster Osnabrück |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | Nörvenich |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | Paderborn Lippstadt |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | Porta Westfalica |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | Rheine Bentlage |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | Siegerland |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | Stadtlohn Wenningfeld |
| --- | --- |

(18)

| (19) | Weeze-Lahrbruch |
| --- | --- |

(19)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF SAXONY

| (1) | Dresden |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Leipzig Halle |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Rothenburg/Oberlausitz |
| --- | --- |

(3)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF THURINGIA

| (1) | Altenburg-Nobitz |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Erfurt - Weimar |
| --- | --- |

(2)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF RHINELAND PALATINATE

| (1) | Büchel |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Föhren |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Hahn |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Koblenz Winningen |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Mainz-Finthen |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Pirmasens Zweibrücken |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Ramstein (US-Air Base) |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Speyer |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Spangdahlem (US-Air Base) |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Zweibrücken |
| --- | --- |

(10)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF SAARLAND

| (1) | Saarbrücken Ensheim |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Saarlouis/Düren |
| --- | --- |

(2)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF HESSE

| (1) | Egelsbach |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Allendorf/Eder |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Frankfurt/Main |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Fritzlar |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Kassel Calden |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Reichelsheim |
| --- | --- |

(6)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF BADEN WÜRTTEMBERG

| (1) | Aalen Heidenheim Elchingen |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Baden Airport Karlsruhe Baden-Baden |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Donaueschingen Villingen |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Freiburg/Brg. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Friedrichshafen Löwental |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Heubach (Krs. Schwäb.Gmünd) |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Lahr |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Laupheim |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Leutkirch Unterzeil |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Mannheim City |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Mengen |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Niederstetten |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | Schwäbisch Hall |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | Stuttgart |
| --- | --- |

(14)

IN THE FEDERAL STATE OF BAVARIA

| (1) | Aschaffenburg |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Augsburg Mühlhausen |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Bayreuth Bindlacher Berg |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Coburg Brandebsteinsebene |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | Gielbelstadt |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Hassfurth Mainwiesen |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | Hof Plauen |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | Ingolstadt |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | Landsberg/Lech |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Landshut Ellermühle |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Lechfeld |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Memmingerberg |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | München ‘Franz Joseph Strauß’ |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | Neuburg |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | Nürnberg |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | Oberpfaffenhofen, |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | Roth |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | Straubing Wallmühle |
| --- | --- |

(18)

List of previous publications

| | OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1.

| | OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16.

| | OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9.

| | OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10.

| | OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13.

| | OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10.

| | OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10.

| | OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20.

| | OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7.

| | OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28.

| | OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22.

| | OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17.

| | OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13.

| | OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17.

| | OJ C 355, 29.12.2010, p. 34. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 355, 29.12.2010, p. 34.

| | OJ C 22, 22.1.2011, p. 22. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 22, 22.1.2011, p. 22.

| | OJ C 37, 5.2.2011, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 37, 5.2.2011, p. 12.

| | OJ C 149, 20.5.2011, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 149, 20.5.2011, p. 8.

| | OJ C 190, 30.6.2011, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 190, 30.6.2011, p. 17.

| | OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 14. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 14.

| | OJ C 210, 16.7.2011, p. 30. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 210, 16.7.2011, p. 30.

| | OJ C 271, 14.9.2011, p. 18. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 271, 14.9.2011, p. 18.

| | OJ C 356, 6.12.2011, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 356, 6.12.2011, p. 12.

| | OJ C 111, 18.4.2012, p. 3. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 111, 18.4.2012, p. 3.

| | OJ C 183, 23.6.2012, p. 7. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 183, 23.6.2012, p. 7.

| | OJ C 313, 17.10.2012, p. 11. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 313, 17.10.2012, p. 11.

| | OJ C 394, 20.12.2012, p. 22. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 394, 20.12.2012, p. 22.

| | OJ C 51, 22.2.2013, p. 9. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 51, 22.2.2013, p. 9.

| | OJ C 167, 13.6.2013, p. 9. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 167, 13.6.2013, p. 9.

| | OJ C 242, 23.8.2013, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 242, 23.8.2013, p. 2.

| | OJ C 275, 24.9.2013, p. 7. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 275, 24.9.2013, p. 7.

| | OJ C 314, 29.10.2013, p. 5. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 314, 29.10.2013, p. 5.

| | OJ C 324, 9.11.2013, p. 6. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 324, 9.11.2013, p. 6.

| | OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 4. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 4.

| | OJ C 167, 4.6.2014, p. 9. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 167, 4.6.2014, p. 9.

| | OJ C 244, 26.7.2014, p. 22. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 244, 26.7.2014, p. 22.

| | OJ C 332, 24.9.2014, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 332, 24.9.2014, p. 12.

| | OJ C 420, 22.11.2014, p. 9. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 420, 22.11.2014, p. 9.

| | OJ C 72, 28.2.2015, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 72, 28.2.2015, p. 17.

| | OJ C 126, 18.4.2015, p. 10. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 126, 18.4.2015, p. 10.

| | OJ C 229, 14.7.2015, p. 5. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 229, 14.7.2015, p. 5.

| | OJ C 341, 16.10.2015, p. 19. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 341, 16.10.2015, p. 19.

| | OJ C 84, 4.3.2016, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 84, 4.3.2016, p. 2.

| | OJ C 236, 30.6.2016, p. 6. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 236, 30.6.2016, p. 6.

| | OJ C 278, 30.7.2016, p. 47. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 278, 30.7.2016, p. 47.

| | OJ C 331, 9.9.2016, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 331, 9.9.2016, p. 2.

| | OJ C 401, 29.10.2016, p. 4. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 401, 29.10.2016, p. 4.

| | OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 30. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 30.

| | OJ C 32, 1.2.2017, p. 4. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 32, 1.2.2017, p. 4.

| | OJ C 74, 10.3.2017, p. 9. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 74, 10.3.2017, p. 9.

| | OJ C 120, 13.4.2017, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 120, 13.4.2017, p. 17.

| | OJ C 152, 16.5.2017, p. 5. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 152, 16.5.2017, p. 5.

| | OJ C 411, 2.12.2017, p. 10. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 411, 2.12.2017, p. 10.

| | OJ C 31, 27.1.2018, p. 12. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 31, 27.1.2018, p. 12.

| | OJ C 261, 25.7.2018, p. 6. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 261, 25.7.2018, p. 6.

| | OJ C 264, 26.7.2018, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 264, 26.7.2018, p. 8.

| | OJ C 368, 11.10.2018, p. 4. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 368, 11.10.2018, p. 4.

---

(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/47

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 September 2018

in Case E-10/17

Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS

(Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

(2018/C 459/16)

In Case E-10/17, Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in the context of national rules on the limitation period for claims for damages in cases where fines have been imposed under Articles 53 and 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 17 September 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The principle of equivalence requires that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly to an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority imposing a fine, in so far as those actions have a similar purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The principle of equivalence requires that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly to an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority imposing a fine, in so far as those actions have a similar purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics.

| 2. | The principle of effectiveness does not restrict the EEA States’ right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before the EFTA Surveillance Authority has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party, as long as the application of such a limitation period does not make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring an action for damages for infringement of EEA competition rules. That assessment must take into account the special characteristics of competition cases. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of effectiveness does not restrict the EEA States’ right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before the EFTA Surveillance Authority has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party, as long as the application of such a limitation period does not make it impossible or excessively difficult to bring an action for damages for infringement of EEA competition rules. That assessment must take into account the special characteristics of competition cases.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 20.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/48

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 459/17)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Amcor Limited (‘Amcor’, Australia), |
| --- | --- |

—

Amcor Limited (‘Amcor’, Australia),

| — | Bemis Company Inc. (‘Bemis’, United States of America). |
| --- | --- |

—

Bemis Company Inc. (‘Bemis’, United States of America).

Amcor enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with Bemis.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

The same concentration was already notified to the Commission on 15 November 2018, but the notification was subsequently withdrawn on 12 December 2018.

2.

—   for Amcor: supply of a broad range packaging solutions; rigid and flexible packaging products for the food, beverage, medical, pharmaceutical, personal care and other consumer goods sectors globally,

—   for Bemis: supply of flexible and rigid plastic packaging for the food, consumer products, medical and other sectors worldwide.

3.

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

4.

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

M.9094 — Amcor/Bemis

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

| E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| --- |
| Fax +32 229-64301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 229-64301

Postal address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

1

---