# Official Journal C 224/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 224 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 638 July 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 224

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 638 July 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 224/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9816 – Advent/TA/Conservice) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2020/C 224/02 | Communication from the Commission concerning the prolongation and the amendments of the Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020, Guidelines on State Aid to Promote Risk Finance Investments, Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, Communication on the Criteria for the Analysis of the Compatibility with the Internal Market of State Aid to Promote the Execution of Important Projects of Common European Interest, Communication from the Commission – Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation and Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance | 2 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 224/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9816 – Advent/TA/Conservice) (
  1
  )

1

1

2020/C 224/02

Communication from the Commission concerning the prolongation and the amendments of the Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020, Guidelines on State Aid to Promote Risk Finance Investments, Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, Communication on the Criteria for the Analysis of the Compatibility with the Internal Market of State Aid to Promote the Execution of Important Projects of Common European Interest, Communication from the Commission – Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation and Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 224/03 | Euro exchange rates — 7 July 2020 | 5 |
| 2020/C 224/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 22 April 2020 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding Rapporteur: Croatia (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2020/C 224/05 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2020/C 224/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 4 May 2020 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding)
  (notified under document number C(2020) 2752)

   (
  1
  ) | 10 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 224/03

Euro exchange rates — 7 July 2020

5

2020/C 224/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 22 April 2020 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding Rapporteur: Croatia (
  1
  )

1

6

2020/C 224/05

Final Report of the Hearing Officer Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding (
  1
  )

1

8

2020/C 224/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 4 May 2020 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding)
  (notified under document number C(2020) 2752)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document number C(2020) 2752)

1

10

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 224/07 | Publication of an application for registration of a name pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 16 |
| 2020/C 224/08 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 21 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2020/C 224/07

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

16

2020/C 224/08

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

21

---

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

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9816 – Advent/TA/Conservice)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 224/01)

On 6 May 2020, 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 32020M9816. 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 32020M9816. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/2

---

Communication from the Commission concerning the prolongation and the amendments of the Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020, Guidelines on State Aid to Promote Risk Finance Investments, Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, Communication on the Criteria for the Analysis of the Compatibility with the Internal Market of State Aid to Promote the Execution of Important Projects of Common European Interest, Communication from the Commission – Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation and Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance

(2020/C 224/02)

(1)

| (a) | Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 (1); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 (1);

| (b) | Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments (2); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments (2);

| (c) | Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (3); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (3);

| (d) | Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (4); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (4);

| (e) | Communication – Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (5) (IPCEI); |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Communication – Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (5) (IPCEI);

| (f) | Communication on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance (6) (STEC). |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Communication on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to short-term export-credit insurance (6) (STEC).

(2)

In the context of the Green Deal and Digital Agenda, the Commission has already announced its intention to revise a series of guidelines by the end of 2021.

(3)

To provide predictability and legal certainty, while preparing for a future update of the State aid rules, it is appropriate to extend the period of application of the guidelines listed in point (1) until the end of 2021. The period of application of the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty should be extended for three years.

(4)

The prolongation of those rules will allow the Commission to finalise the evaluation of those rules together with other State aid rules adopted as part of the State Aid Modernisation initiative. On 7 January 2019, the Commission launched the evaluation of the those rules in the form of a ‘fitness check’. On the basis of the result of that evaluation, the Commission will then be in a position to decide whether to further prolong or update those rules.

(5)

As regards the national regional aid maps, the Commission invites Member States to notify by 1 September 2020 to the Commission their intention to prolong the validity of their national regional aid maps. Following the approval of the prolongation of the national regional aid maps until 31 December 2021, Member States may decide to prolong the existing schemes approved on the basis of the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020.

(6)

Having regard to the economic and financial consequences that the COVID-19 outbreak may have on undertakings, temporary adaptations of some State aid guidelines are also necessary. In particular, in the framework of the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020, the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, the Communication – Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (IPCEI) and the Framework for State aid for research and development and innovation, undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty after 31 December 2019 should be eligible under those guidelines until 30 June 2021.

(7)

With regard to the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, the sharp decline of electricity prices due to the COVID-19 outbreak could lead to situations where the electro-intensity of undertakings may decrease. In that case, the undertaking may lose eligibility under Section 3.7.2 (targeted reductions in the funding of support for energy from renewable sources for competitiveness reasons) when applying Annex 4 for calculating the GVA (Gross Value Added) and the electro-intensity at the level of the undertaking. The calculation methods to be used should therefore be adapted, in order to address this in an appropriate manner.

(8)

Having regard to the above, those Guidelines should be adapted as set out in points (9) to (15).

(9)

| (a) | In point 18, the following sentence is added:
  ‘These Guidelines shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’ |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In point 18, the following sentence is added:

‘These Guidelines shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’

| (b) | The following points is inserted after point 178:






  ‘178a. | In view of the expiry of the validity of the national regional aid maps on 31 December 2020, the Commission invites Member States to notify by 1 September 2020 to the Commission their intention to prolong the validity of their national regional aid maps. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

The following points is inserted after point 178:

‘178a.

In view of the expiry of the validity of the national regional aid maps on 31 December 2020, the Commission invites Member States to notify by 1 September 2020 to the Commission their intention to prolong the validity of their national regional aid maps.

| 178b. | Following the approval of the prolongation of the national regional aid maps until 31 December 2021, Member States may decide to prolong the existing schemes approved on the basis of the present Guidelines. Any prolongation of such schemes must be notified to the Commission in due time before their expiry date.’ |
| --- | --- |

178b.

Following the approval of the prolongation of the national regional aid maps until 31 December 2021, Member States may decide to prolong the existing schemes approved on the basis of the present Guidelines. Any prolongation of such schemes must be notified to the Commission in due time before their expiry date.’

(10)

| ‘174. | The Commission will apply the principles set out in these Guidelines for the compatibility assessment of all risk finance aid to be awarded from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2021.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘174.

The Commission will apply the principles set out in these Guidelines for the compatibility assessment of all risk finance aid to be awarded from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2021.’

(11)

| (a) | In point 16, the following sentence is added:
  ‘These Guidelines shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’ |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In point 16, the following sentence is added:

‘These Guidelines shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’

| (b) | Point 108 is replaced by the following:






  ‘108. | These Guidelines apply to the period until 31 December 2021. However, they should prepare the ground for achieving the objectives set in the 2030 Framework (7). Notably, it is expected that in the period between 2020 and 2030 established renewable energy sources will become grid-competitive, implying that subsidies and exemptions from balancing responsibilities should be phased out in a degressive way. These Guidelines are consistent with that objective and will ensure the transition to a cost-effective delivery through market-based mechanisms.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Point 108 is replaced by the following:

‘108.

These Guidelines apply to the period until 31 December 2021. However, they should prepare the ground for achieving the objectives set in the 2030 Framework (7). Notably, it is expected that in the period between 2020 and 2030 established renewable energy sources will become grid-competitive, implying that subsidies and exemptions from balancing responsibilities should be phased out in a degressive way. These Guidelines are consistent with that objective and will ensure the transition to a cost-effective delivery through market-based mechanisms.’

| (c) | Point 246 is replaced by the following:






  ‘246. | These Guidelines will be applied from 1 July 2014 and replace the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection published on 1 April 2008. They will be applicable until 31 December 2021.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

Point 246 is replaced by the following:

‘246.

These Guidelines will be applied from 1 July 2014 and replace the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection published on 1 April 2008. They will be applicable until 31 December 2021.’

| (d) | Annex 4 is amended as follows:






  (i) | Point 2 is replaced by the following:






  ‘2. | For the purposes of applying Section 3.7.2 Member States can use:






  a) | the arithmetic mean over the most recent 3 years for which GVA data is available; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

(d)

Annex 4 is amended as follows:

(i)

Point 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.

For the purposes of applying Section 3.7.2 Member States can use:

a)

the arithmetic mean over the most recent 3 years for which GVA data is available;

| b) | the arithmetic mean of 2 years chosen from the most recent 3 years for which GVA data is available, provided this method is applied in the same way to all beneficiaries. |
| --- | --- |

b)

the arithmetic mean of 2 years chosen from the most recent 3 years for which GVA data is available, provided this method is applied in the same way to all beneficiaries.

The Commission considers that moving from a calculation pursuant to method a) to method b) does not constitute a notifiable change.’

| (ii) | Point 5 is replaced by the following:






  ‘5. | For the calculation of the electricity consumption of the undertaking, use is to be made of electricity consumption efficiency benchmarks for the industry where available. If not available, Member States can use:






  a) | the arithmetic mean over the most recent 3 years for which data is available; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

Point 5 is replaced by the following:

‘5.

For the calculation of the electricity consumption of the undertaking, use is to be made of electricity consumption efficiency benchmarks for the industry where available. If not available, Member States can use:

a)

the arithmetic mean over the most recent 3 years for which data is available;

| b) | the arithmetic mean of 2 years chosen from the most recent 3 years for which data is available, provided this method is applied in the same way to all beneficiaries. |
| --- | --- |

b)

the arithmetic mean of 2 years chosen from the most recent 3 years for which data is available, provided this method is applied in the same way to all beneficiaries.

The Commission considers that moving from a calculation pursuant to method (a) to method (b) does not constitute a notifiable change.’

(12)

| ‘135. | The Commission will apply these guidelines with effect from 1 August 2014 until 31 December 2023.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘135.

The Commission will apply these guidelines with effect from 1 August 2014 until 31 December 2023.’

(13)

| (a) | In point 10(a) the following sentence is added:
  ‘These Guidelines shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’ |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In point 10(a) the following sentence is added:

‘These Guidelines shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’

| (b) | Point 50 is replaced by the following:






  ‘50. | This communication will be applied from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2021.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Point 50 is replaced by the following:

‘50.

This communication will be applied from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2021.’

(14)

| (a) | Point 6 is replaced by the following:






  ‘6. | Having regard to the need for continuity and legal certainty in the treatment of State aid in the field of short-term export-credit insurance, it is considered appropriate to apply the current Communication until 31 December 2021. This will align its expiration date with those of the majority of State aid guidelines adopted pursuant to the State aid modernisation programme.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

Point 6 is replaced by the following:

‘6.

Having regard to the need for continuity and legal certainty in the treatment of State aid in the field of short-term export-credit insurance, it is considered appropriate to apply the current Communication until 31 December 2021. This will align its expiration date with those of the majority of State aid guidelines adopted pursuant to the State aid modernisation programme.’

| (b) | Point 15 is replaced by the following:






  ‘15. | The Commission has decided to continue to apply the current Communication until 31 December 2021.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Point 15 is replaced by the following:

‘15.

The Commission has decided to continue to apply the current Communication until 31 December 2021.’

(15)

‘This Framework shall, however, apply to undertakings which were not in difficulty on 31 December 2019 but became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021.’

---

(1)  Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 (OJ C 209, 23.7.2013, p. 1).

1

(2)  Communication from the Commission – Guidelines on State aid to promote risk finance investments (OJ C 19, 22.1.2014, p. 4).

2

(3)  Communication from the Commission – Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ C 200, 28.6.2014, p. 1).

3

(4)  Communication from the Commission – Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty (OJ C 249, 31.7.2014, p. 1).

4

(5)  Communication from the Commission – Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (OJ C 188, 20.6.2014, p. 4).

5

(6)  OJ C 392, 19.12.2012, p. 1.

6

(7)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 (COM(2014) 15 final) of 22.1.2014.

7

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2020

(2020/C 224/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1290 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4522 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90150 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4555 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0643 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 157,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,6428 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,681 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 353,62 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4683 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8393 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,7508 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6261 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5317 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7499 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7260 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5751 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 349,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,2908 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9287 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5490 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 302,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8259 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,892 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 80,8888 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,262 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,0701 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 25,4764 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,4645 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1290

JPY

Japanese yen

121,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4522

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90150

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4555

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0643

ISK

Iceland króna

157,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,6428

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,681

HUF

Hungarian forint

353,62

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4683

RON

Romanian leu

4,8393

TRY

Turkish lira

7,7508

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6261

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5317

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7499

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7260

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5751

KRW

South Korean won

1 349,06

ZAR

South African rand

19,2908

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9287

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5490

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 302,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8259

PHP

Philippine peso

55,892

RUB

Russian rouble

80,8888

THB

Thai baht

35,262

BRL

Brazilian real

6,0701

MXN

Mexican peso

25,4764

INR

Indian rupee

84,4645

---

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

---

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers at its meeting of 22 April 2020 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding

Rapporteur: Croatia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 224/04)

Operation

| 1. | The Advisory Committee (10 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 (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the Transaction has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Product markets

| 3. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market for the purchase of copper scrap for smelting and refining (CSSR). |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market for the purchase of copper scrap no.2. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market for copper cathodes. |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market for copper rods. |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agree with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market for copper shapes. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Geographic markets

| 8. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant geographic market for the purchase of copper scrap for smelting and refining (CSSR) as EEA-wide. |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant geographic market for the purchase of copper scrap no.2 as EEA-wide. |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant geographic market for copper cathodes as global. |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission in leaving the geographic market definition for copper rods open. |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission in leaving the geographic market definition for copper shapes open. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Competitive assessment

| 13. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the Transaction, as notified, would not significantly impede effective competition with regard to horizontal non-coordinated effects in:






  a. | The market for the purchase of CSSR in the EEA; |
| --- | --- | --- |

13.

a.

The market for the purchase of CSSR in the EEA;

| b. | The market for the purchase of copper scrap no.2 in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

b.

The market for the purchase of copper scrap no.2 in the EEA.

| 14. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the Transaction, as notified, would not significantly impede effective competition with regard to vertical non-coordinated effects. |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that Aurubis and Metallo are unlikely to have the ability and incentive to engage in input foreclosure post-Transaction in any plausible market. |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that Aurubis and Metallo are unlikely to have the ability and incentive to engage in customer foreclosure post-Transaction in any plausible market. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Compatibility with the internal market

| 17. | The Advisory Committee (10 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the Transaction, as notified, should therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

17.

---

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/8

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 224/05)

1.

On 14 October 2019, (2) the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which Aurubis AG (‘Aurubis’) would acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (3) (‘the Merger Regulation’), sole control of the whole of Metallo Group Holding N.V. (‘Metallo’) (the ‘Proposed Transaction’). For the purpose of this report, Aurubis and Metallo are together referred to as ‘the Parties’.

2.

On 19 November 2019, the Commission adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

3.

On 10 December 2019, following a request from Aurubis, an extension of 10 working days pursuant to Article 10(3), second subparagraph, first sentence, of the Merger Regulation was granted.

4.

On 11 February 2020, the Commission adopted a statement of objections (the ‘SO’). The SO was formally notified to Aurubis on 12 February 2020 (4) and Aurubis was granted a deadline to submit its observations until 25 February 2020. On the same day, Metallo was informed of the adoption of the SO and of the possibility to submit observations on it pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004. (5)

5.

Between 12 and 24 February 2020, Aurubis obtained access to the accessible documents in the Commission’s case file as well as via a data room (6) that was organised on the premises of the Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’). I have not received any complaint or further request from the Parties regarding access to the file.

6.

On 24 February 2020, one undertaking was admitted to be heard as an interested third person in this case. The interested third person did not request or indicate that it would be interested to attend the oral hearing. The interested third person was provided with a non-confidential version of the SO and given a time limit within which to make known its views.

7.

On 25 February 2020, the Parties submitted their written comments on the SO, in accordance with the deadline for response by this date as granted to Aurubis. The Parties requested a formal oral hearing.

8.

On 2 March 2020, the formal oral hearing took place. There were no procedural problems or complaints raised in relation to this hearing.

9.

On 10 March 2020, an extension of 10 working days pursuant to Article 10(3), second subparagraph of the Merger Regulation was granted.

10.

The draft decision unconditionally declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

11.

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

Brussels, 22 April 2020.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 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)  It concerns a re-notification by Aurubis of the Proposed Transaction, after an initial notification on 30 August 2019 that was withdrawn by it on 25 September 2019.

2

(3)  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).

3

(4)  In the evening of 11 February 2020, an (informal) advance information copy of the SO and its cover letter were sent to Aurubis’ lawyers.

4

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

5

(6)  On 19 February 2020, an external adviser to Metallo was granted access to the data room as well.

6

---

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/10

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 4 May 2020

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

(Case M.9409 – Aurubis/Metallo Group Holding)

(notified under document number C(2020) 2752)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 224/06)

On 4 May 2020 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(1) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in English on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?clear=1&policy_area_id=2

I.   THE PARTIES

| (1) | Aurubis is a vertically integrated provider of non-ferrous metals and the leading player in the copper industry in Europe. The core business of Aurubis is the production of copper cathodes both from mined copper concentrate and from copper scrap. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Copper cathodes are the standard copper product traded on the London Metal Exchange. Aurubis is also present in further stages of the copper value chain. It processes copper cathodes into wire rod and shapes. The latter are intermediate products used for the production of flat rolled products which Aurubis also produces. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Metallo, headquartered in Belgium, processes and refines non-ferrous metals, including mainly copper. Metallo is specialised in recycling and refining low-grade and highly complex mainly copper scrap materials, valorising nine different metal types (copper, tin, lead), metal products (zinc oxide, nickel bleed, anode slimes) and minerals. Copper accounts for the largest share of Metallo’s output in refined metals and metal products. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | Metallo is a pure secondary copper refiner, (2) i.e. it uses only copper scrap as input for its refining operations. It has two recycling and refining plants, one in Beerse, Belgium and one in Berango, Spain. Metallo is one of the world’s most technologically advanced players for processing low grade and complex scrap. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

II.   THE OPERATION

| (5) | On 30 August 2019, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (3) (the ‘Merger Regulation’) by which Aurubis intends to acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Metallo by way of purchase of shares (hereinafter the ‘Transaction’). Aurubis and Metallo are designated hereinafter as the ‘Parties’. The entity resulting from the Transaction is designated hereinafter as the ‘merged entity’. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Following an initial Phase I investigation, on 25 September 2019, Aurubis withdrew the notification. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | The case was re-notified on 14 October 2019. (4) |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | The Transaction has a Union dimension as the turnover thresholds set out in Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation are met. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | On 11 February 2020 the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’), where it came to the preliminary view that the Transaction would likely significantly impede effective competition in the internal market in relation to the market for the purchasing of Copper Scrap for Smelting and Refining (‘CSSR’) in the EEA within the meaning of Article 2 of the Merger Regulation due to (i) the removal of an important competitor for the purchasing of CSSR in the EEA; and (ii) the creation of a dominant position for Aurubis for the purchasing of CSSR in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

III.   SUMMARY

| (10) | The market investigation in Phase II revealed that the Transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market with regard to the market for the purchasing of CSSR in the EEA. Similarly, no significant impediment to effective competition was found with respect to copper scrap no.2 or with regard to vertical relationships between the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | Therefore, the Transaction is declared compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement and therefore, a clearance decision pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement was adopted on 4 May 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

IV.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A.   THE RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS

| (12) | The Transaction concerns the purchasing and refining of copper scrap. Copper scrap can generally be divided into copper scrap for refining (which requires smelting and refining by a secondary refiner) and copper scrap for direct melt (which can be directly re-melted by industrial users of copper). Copper scrap for refining is treated to recover the copper and to ultimately produce copper cathodes. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | Within copper scrap for refining, the Parties overlap in the purchase of copper scrap for smelting and refining (‘CSSR’) and so-called ‘copper scrap no.2’. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | Both CSSR and copper scrap no.2 are separate product markets, which are distinct from other intermediate products used for producing copper cathodes, such as copper blister and copper anodes. They are also distinct from copper scrap for direct melt. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | Copper scrap no.2 is a relatively standardised copper scrap category, which is traded as a commodity. Copper scrap no.2 contains high copper content and only limited impurities. A large and diverse set of buyers have demand for copper scrap no.2, including primary and secondary copper refiners, ingot makers and manufacturers of semi-finished products. For example, in addition to secondary copper refiners such as the Parties, primary refineries might purchase copper scrap no.2 and mix it with primary copper for their smelting processes. Also, while in most cases copper scrap no.2 requires a smelting process, in some cases certain manufacturers of copper semi-finished products (as for example rods and copper rolled products) and of copper alloy ingots are capable to direct melt (i.e. without any refining process) a relatively small quantity of copper scrap no.2. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | CSSR is highly differentiated and includes a wide range of non-standardised copper scrap materials ranging from less complex, such as certain copper alloy scrap and copper iron scrap, to more complex materials such as metal fractions from municipal solid waste incinerators (incinerator bottom ashes containing copper) or industrial residues. These more complex materials are more difficult to process. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | Demand for CSSR and for copper scrap no.2 comes primarily from secondary copper refiners, but to a lesser extent also from primary copper refiners and other buyers such as ingot makers and manufacturers of semi-finished products. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | The Transaction gives also rise to two vertically affected markets in copper cathodes, copper rod and in copper shapes. Metallo produces and supplies copper cathodes, which are input products for copper rod and copper shapes (produced by Aurubis). |
| --- | --- |

(18)

| (19) | Copper cathodes constitutes a separate product market. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

| (20) | Copper rods and copper shapes are two separate product markets. Copper rods are typically used for manufacturing cables and wires, while copper shapes are used as input material for copper rolled products. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

B.   THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

| (21) | Evidence suggests that the geographic market for the purchasing of both CSSR and of copper scrap no.2 is EEA-wide in scope. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

| (22) | Conditions of competition between the EEA and other regions are heterogeneous and prices for copper scrap differ between world regions, which suggests that global price arbitrage is not effective. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

| (23) | In line with the Commission’s previous practice and confirmed in the course of the market investigation, the geographic market of copper cathodes is global. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

| (24) | As regards the geographic markets for both copper rod and copper shapes, the Commission found indication for both a worldwide and EEA-wide market. However, for the purposes of the present case it can be left open whether the relevant geographic market is global or EEA-wide as the vertical links between the Parties’ activities on these product markets do not result in a significant impediment to effective competition under any plausible geographic market definition. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

C.   COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

| (25) | While in its SO the Commission articulated preliminary concerns as to the market for the purchasing of CSSR in the EEA, in the light of the submissions by the Parties and new evidence, these concerns are not maintained. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

| (26) | With respect to the market for the purchasing of copper scrap no.2, consistently with the SO, the Commission does not find any competition concern. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

| (27) | The Commission assessed whether an increase in purchasing power by the merged entity would result in lower prices paid to scrap suppliers. In the context of the circular copper value chain, such harm to suppliers could take different forms depending on the sellers of the scrap: (i) for industrial suppliers/sellers of copper scrap (for which scrap is an unavoidable by-product of their production process), a lower price paid for their scrap would be equivalent to an increase in their marginal cost, likely leading to higher downstream prices for their products; and (ii) in the case of other suppliers/sellers of copper scrap such as collectors, traders and pre-processors (which collect and pre-process end-of-life scrap), a lower price paid for their scrap could lower their incentives and ability to invest and collect copper scrap. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

1.   Horizontal non-coordinated effects in the EEA market for the purchasing of CSSR

| (28) | In its SO, the Commission preliminarily found that the merged entity would have a combined 2018 share of 40–50 % for all the CSSR sold by EEA-based suppliers. The Parties were preliminarily considered to be close competitors in terms of capabilities and purchasing behaviour. The effective alternative outlets for CSSR, to which suppliers have access to, were preliminarily considered limited. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

| (29) | In light of the submissions of the Parties in response to the SO, further written submissions and further evidence submitted by Aurubis, the Commission in the Decision concludes the Transaction would not give rise to horizontal non-coordinated effects in the EEA market for the purchasing of CSSR for the reasons explained below. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

| (30) | Contrary to what the Commission found on a preliminary basis in the SO, the combined purchasing shares of the Parties are moderate. Although Metallo has purchasing shares of 10–20 %, and Aurubis of 10–20 %, which make them the number 1 and the number 2 purchasers of EEA-supplied CSSR, their combined EEA purchasing share is moderate at 20–30 %. Two refining competitors, Brixlegg and Boliden, have respectively EEA purchasing shares of 5–10 %, followed by a number of other copper refiners with shares of 0–5 %. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

| (31) | The lower combined purchasing share of the merged entity compared to the value presented in the SO results in large part from adjustments made to the Commission’s market reconstruction following additional evidence submitted by the Parties. Given the highly heterogeneous nature of CSSR, which is not an industry-defined category, there were erroneous categorisations of volumes. Additional export data from Eurostat was also submitted by the Parties, enabling the Commission to correct the value of exports. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

| (32) | Post-Transaction, the merged entity will continue to be constrained by a number of effective alternatives to which suppliers of CSSR will continue to have access. In the first instance, these are other copper refiners in the EEA, which are the closest rivals to the Parties. Further, non-EEA copper refiners and other non-EEA purchasers have significant demand for CSSR materials. In effect, EEA suppliers export 40–50 % of their overall CSSR production. Exports therefore represent an important alternative option for suppliers in case of EEA price decrease and, as a corollary, a material constraint on the Parties’ purchasing power. Additionally, ingot makers, manufacturers of semi-finished products and non-copper smelters also purchase certain CSSR materials. Finally, suppliers appear to be capable of reducing the Parties’ buyer power by engaging in practices such as upgrading CSSR to other products or in stocking and de-stocking CSSR to achieve better prices. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

| (33) | Contrary to what the Commission found on a preliminary basis in the SO, the Parties cannot be regarded as particularly close competitors. The Parties’ technical capabilities are to a large degree complementary in terms of metals they can refine, recover and ultimately sell. Therefore, their purchasing activities also result to large degree complementary. By analysing the Parties’ suppliers it also appears that their number of overlapping suppliers is limited when compared to their overall number of suppliers. Finally, certain competitors rival the Parties in terms of their technological capabilities and purchasing behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

| (34) | While there are significant barriers to entry into copper scrap for refining, capacity and capability expansions of existing players occur regularly. Such expansions would also be possible in case of a significant price decrease for CSSR. Further, in particular copper refiners active in markets neighbouring CSSR, such as in the e-scrap market (which mainly relates to printed circuit boards and is currently of higher margin than CSSR), may find it attractive to enter CSSR refining in case of a price decrease of CSSR following the Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

| (35) | Overall, the Transaction is unlikely to lead to a significant price effect. Of those suppliers that responded to the market investigation, including suppliers not selling scrap to the Parties, a large number expressed concerns about a reduction of the price at which scrap is being purchased by the Parties. However, the investigation has shown that sufficient effective alternative outlets will be available for these suppliers to sell their scrap. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

| (36) | In addition, the Parties are able to influence only a relatively small price component of the copper scrap, i.e. the so-called refining charge. A reduction of this price component would have a small effect on the overall price for copper scrap because other price components, and noticeably the copper price quoted at the London Metal Exchange, are of some orders of magnitude larger than refining charges and typically have important fluctuations throughout the year. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

| (37) | Finally, and in any case, any price effect would possibly be counteracted, at least in part, by the synergies associated with the Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

| (38) | The Transaction is also unlikely to result in a significant reduction in incentives for the suppliers to invest and innovate in the treatment and recovery of metals. Better scrap treatment capabilities would post-Transaction be applicable to a larger volume of scrap purchases and therefore be more attractive to engage in. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

| (39) | The Transaction is also unlikely to have a significant effect on CSSR collection. Supply from industrial suppliers of CSSR is in any case highly inelastic, as these market participants generate CSSR in fixed-proportion to their downstream copper-containing products (and minimise their scrap irrespective of the Transaction, because scrap represents a reduction of productivity). Traders, collectors and pre-processors are not likely to reduce their collection, as they can either avoid any price effect by passing it on along the copper value chain, or because, as they submitted during the market investigation, their incentives post-Transaction to collect scrap would not change. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

| (40) | Another important element in the analysis of the Transaction is the limited incentives of the merged entity to reduce its CSSR purchases due to the high costs associated with operating at less than full capacity. Indeed, due to its very high fixed costs, a copper refinery needs to constantly run at full capacity in order to be cost-effective. Therefore, any attempt of the merged entity to reduce the infeed of scrap would result in unaffordable increased costs. Therefore the Transaction will likely not result in a reduction in output. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

2.   Horizontal non-coordinated effects in the EEA market for the purchasing of copper scrap no. 2

| (41) | In its SO, the Commission did not raise any preliminary concerns in relation to the market for copper scrap no.2. Despite the relatively large combined purchasing share of EEA-supplied copper scrap no.2 of the Parties, a large number of effective alternatives to the Parties would remain post-Transaction both inside and outside the EEA. This is even more so the case than in the case of CSSR – largely because copper scrap no.2 is a commoditised type of scrap and the technological capabilities required to refine it effectively are widely held by both secondary copper refiners as well as pure primary copper refiners (that primarily process copper concentrate and use additional copper scrap no.2 for controlling their refining processes). |
| --- | --- |

(41)

| (42) | Metallo adds an increment of 5–10 % to Aurubis’ 2018 purchasing share of EEA-supplied copper scrap no.2 of 30–40 %. The merged entity would have a purchasing share of 30–40 %. The EEA refining competitors Brixlegg and KGHM follow with 5–10 % each, followed by further EEA refiners. Exports account for 39 %. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

| (43) | Pre-Transaction, Metallo is not a strong competitive force in the purchasing of copper scrap no.2, because it does not focus on this scrap. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

| (44) | Post-Transaction, a large number of purchasers of copper scrap no.2 will remain. Firstly many copper refiners both inside and outside the EEA purchase and treat copper scrap no.2, irrespective of whether their focus is mainly on secondary or primary copper recovery. These copper refiners have largely comparable technological capabilities to effectively treat copper scrap no.2. Secondly, in addition to these refining competitors, a significant number of other purchasers compete for copper scrap no.2. In particular manufacturers of semi-finished products can use certain copper scrap no.2 materials in their production processes. Finally, it is possible (for suppliers) to further upgrade copper scrap no.2 to remove even further impurities and thereby make the material attractive to an even larger group of potential purchasers. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

| (45) | The ability to export copper scrap no.2 from the EEA (or for smaller suppliers to sell the copper scrap no.2 to a larger trader that is capable to export it out of the EEA) is a significant constraint on the Parties (and on EEA copper refiners more generally). Copper scrap no.2 is an internationally recognised category of copper scrap that generally does not require assaying. Due to this commodity characteristic, it is more easily tradeable than other copper scrap categories, which are more differentiated. A growing demand for copper units, coupled with import restrictions for lower grade materials in China, results in significant current and future export opportunities. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

| (46) | A majority of suppliers expects the Transaction to lead to higher refining charges for copper scrap no.2. However, suppliers also submit that they would have access to alternative outlets for copper scrap no.2. Furthermore, even the Parties recognise that copper scrap no.2 is a commoditised, globally traded product. Therefore, it is likely that suppliers could avoid a price effect. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

| (47) | A competitor of the Parties expressed its concern that post-Transaction the merged entity would lower its refining charges (i.e. pay more for copper scrap no.2), thereby foreclosing it from the copper scrap no.2 input, which it needs to produce its copper cathodes. However, it is highly unlikely for the merged entity to engage in such a practice. Paying more for copper scrap no.2 would be reasonable only if larger quantities could be purchased. However, both Parties only have a limited ability to take in larger quantities. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

3.   Vertical non-coordinated effects in relation to the markets for copper rod and for copper shapes

| (48) | The Commission did not raise concerns in relation to vertical non-coordinated effects in relation to the markets for copper cathodes, copper rod and for copper shapes in its SO. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

| (49) | Based on the very small market shares of Metallo and Aurubis upstream in the sale of copper cathodes on a worldwide level of 5–10 % under any plausible product market delineation as well as the clear feedback received in the course of the market investigation, it is unlikely that the merged entity would have the ability to engage in any foreclosure strategy (neither input nor customer foreclosure) post-Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

V.   CONCLUSION

| (50) | 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. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

| (51) | Consequently the concentration should be declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

---

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

(2)  Secondary refiners utilise only copper scrap (also referred to as secondary copper) as input material for producing copper metal. Primary refiners use copper concentrates from mines (also referred to as primary copper) as input material.

(3)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ‘Community’ by ‘Union’ and ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’. The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

(4)  Publication in OJ C 356, 21.10.2019, p. 7.

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/16

---

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

(2020/C 224/07)

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

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘MOLLETE DE ANTEQUERA’

EU No: PGI-ES-02393 –
  23.2.2018

PDO ( ) PGI (X)

1.   Name

‘Mollete de Antequera’

2.   Member State or third country

Spain

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares;

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

‘Mollete de Antequera’ is a type of bread originating from the geographical area referred to in point 4. Made from wheat flour and with a high moisture content and soft crumb, it is baked for a short time. Its peculiar shape is irregular and elliptical at the bottom. It is flat and slim in volume, with a fine dusting of the flour from which it is made.

Wheat bran can be added to the flour while it is being made.

The product comes packaged fresh, frozen/deep-frozen or in a protective atmosphere.

The specific features of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ are defined by the following physico-chemical and organoleptic descriptors:

a)   Shape and formats

The product comes in three formats depending on its weight:

| — | Mollete: 100 to 150 grams. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mollete: 100 to 150 grams.

| — | Medium ‘mollete’: 55 to 99 grams. |
| --- | --- |

—

Medium ‘mollete’: 55 to 99 grams.

| — | Small ‘mollete’: less than 55 grams. |
| --- | --- |

—

Small ‘mollete’: less than 55 grams.

The typical shape of the product must be maintained in all of the formats. This is defined by the ratio between the axes of the ellipse formed by the bottom of the item (‘a’ being the major axis and ‘b’ being the minor one) and by the height (z) defined according to the ratio z/(a * b). The average values and tolerance limits are defined in the following table:

| | Ratio a/b (*1) | Ratio z/(a * b) (*1) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Format | Average value | Tolerance limit | Average value (x10-3) | Tolerance limit |
| Mollete | 1,58 | ±15 % | 2,15 | ±25 % |
| Medium ‘mollete’ | 1,44 | ±15 % | 2,95 | ±25 % |
| Small ‘mollete’ | 1,21 | ±15 % | 6,10 | ±25 % |

Ratio a/b (*1)

Ratio z/(a * b) (*1)

Format

Average value

Tolerance limit

Average value (x10-3)

Tolerance limit

Mollete

1,58

±15 %

2,15

±25 %

Medium ‘mollete’

1,44

±15 %

2,95

±25 %

Small ‘mollete’

1,21

±15 %

6,10

±25 %

b)   Texture

The ‘Mollete de Antequera’ has a characteristically spongy texture.

The maximum values of the deformation force on the volume of the item shall be as follows for each of the types and formats:

| — | Fresh formats: 3 500 g. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fresh formats: 3 500 g.

| — | Fresh formats containing bran: 4 500 g. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fresh formats containing bran: 4 500 g.

| — | Frozen/deep-frozen formats: 5 000 g. |
| --- | --- |

—

Frozen/deep-frozen formats: 5 000 g.

| — | Formats in protective atmosphere: 6 500 g. |
| --- | --- |

—

Formats in protective atmosphere: 6 500 g.

The maximum values for the texture of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ are established for the entire shelf life of the product.

c)   Crumb alveoles

The crumb has a double alveole structure. On the one hand, there are very round and well-formed alveoles with a diameter of less than 5 mm, which are evenly distributed inside the bread. On the other hand and to a lesser degree, there are larger alveoles that are irregular in shape, less than 15 mm and unevenly distributed.

d)   Moisture

The moisture content of the bread is decisive for its quality, ranging between 32 and 45 %.

e)   Organoleptic descriptors

The sensory profile of the fresh format of ‘Mollete de Antequera’ is defined as follows:

The crust is ivory white in colour with a slight hint of vanilla. It can be slightly more toasted on and under the edges, with a fine dusting of the flour used to make the bread. The crust is soft to the touch, fine, elastic and not very flaky. The aroma is of medium to high intensity, with prevailing notes of yeast and dough. The crumb is also off-white in colour but with slightly yellowish hues. It is very spongy in appearance and to the touch. In the mouth it is very tender, with a slightly acidic taste and aromas that again include notes of yeast, dough and flour. The aftertaste is pleasant with medium to low persistence and it is a very balanced product from the organoleptic perspective.

The bran-containing version of ‘Mollete de Antequera’ will vary to some degree in terms of the colour and aroma of the crust and crumb, as a result of the bran added to the mixture. The colour of the crust is slightly dark, mottled by the bran and with a fine dusting of flour from the flour used to make the product. The texture of the crust is slightly rougher but it retains the softness that is so characteristic of this product. The crumb is creamy light brown in colour and its texture is tender, spongy and soft. In the mouth, the taste is mild and subtly acidic, with a slight bitterness that emerges upon chewing and hints of the bran used to make the ‘Mollete de Antequera’. The aroma (of cereal, fibre, wheat and yeast) is very intense and persistent, which is why the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ scores so highly for its sensory qualities.

In the case of the frozen/deep-frozen product, all of the physico-chemical and organoleptic parameters must be measured after it is defrosted. The values of those parameters are the same as those that have been established for the fresh product, with the exception of the texture, which must comply with the stipulated limits.

The raw materials are low-gluten wheat flour (W) (between 110 and 170 x 10-4 joules) with a stretch-resistance and dough-extensibility ratio (P/L) of between 0,25 and 0,65, water, sea salt and organic yeast. For convenience, starter doughs can be used as a replacement/in addition to the organic yeast.

Wheat bran may be added, with a minimum dose of 3,8 % p/p of the baking dough and as long as the physico-chemical properties indicated in point 3.2 are maintained within the designated ranges for the various formats.

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

The raw materials are low-gluten wheat flour (W) (between 110 and 170 x 10-4 joules) with a stretch-resistance and dough-extensibility ratio (P/L) of between 0,25 and 0,65, water, sea salt and organic yeast. For convenience, starter doughs can be used as a replacement/in addition to the organic yeast.

Wheat bran may be added, with a minimum dose of 3,8 % p/p of the baking dough and as long as the physico-chemical properties indicated in point 3.2 are maintained within the designated ranges for the various formats.

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

The product must be made in the demarcated geographical area in order to safeguard the specific quality of this delicate product. The production process consists of the following stages, which are listed in the same order in which they are carried out: kneading, leaving the dough to stand in one piece, dividing up the dough, weighing and forming the dough into balls, leaving the balls of dough to stand, forming the dough into individual pieces, allowing the dough to rise, cooking, cooling or tempering.

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

Fresh ‘Molletes de Antequera’ must be packaged as part of the production process and at the same facilities where they are baked. They must first undergo a process to bring their temperature down to below 38 °C. The freezing/deep-freezing of the ‘Molletes de Antequera’ must be carried out as part of the production line, immediately after packaging, so as to ensure that the specific characteristics of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ are preserved at source. The main reason why the product must be packaged at source is to maintain the high moisture levels of the freshly-made product between 32 % and 45 % as this is crucial to maintaining the characteristics of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ (texture, aromas, etc.). The unpackaged product could lose a significant amount of its original moisture.

Irrespective of whether the product is fresh, frozen/deep-frozen or packaged in a protective atmosphere, it must always be presented in packaged form, with a view to preserving its quality from the source and ensuring its traceability. This requirement applies both to wholesalers and retailers at the production site.

The fresh product must always be packaged in cling film or a similar food grade material that is semi-permeable to oxygen.

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

The words ‘Mollete de Antequera’ and ‘Indicación Geográfica Protegida’ and/or the logo of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ PGI must be prominently displayed on the labels and commercial packaging used on the ‘Mollete de Antequera’.

Image 1

If the product contains wheat bran as part of its composition, the words ‘con salvado’ (contains bran) must be stated on the label. The format of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ must also be specified.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

‘Mollete de Antequera’ is made and packaged within the municipal limits of Antequera and Fuente de Piedra, both of which belong to the province of Málaga.

5.   Link with the geographical area

The basis for the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ Protected Geographical Indication is its reputation.

The remote origin of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ may date back to the lightly baked, low yeast flatbreads made by Jews and Arabs in Al-Andalus in the 12th and 13th centuries. However, the etymological origin of the term ‘mollete’ is from Castilian Spanish (‘muelle’ means soft) and it refers to the soft, spongy texture that is characteristic of this type of bread.

The use of the term ‘mollete’ and the tradition of making this product have only persisted in a few districts of Andalusia, perhaps owing to the greater influence of the culture of Al-Andalus in this region. From the middle of the 20th century onwards, its manufacture and marketing on a large scale were consolidated in Antequera. In this regard, Lorenzo Díaz mentions the municipality of Antequera in his book Diez Siglos de Cocina en Madrid (Ten Centuries of Cooking in Madrid) (1994) as one of the last remaining strongholds of Arab tradition in the south of Spain (Granada, Málaga and Almería) where the Castilian term ‘mollete’ has remained in use.

Records of this ‘Mollete de Antequera’ product being manufactured and eaten in this town in Málaga province go back at least to 1539, as a family recipe featuring the ‘mollete’ as the main staple was found in a culinary volume known as the ‘Book of María Enríquez’, which is part of the Archive of the Marquis de la Vega de Santa María. This document – housed in the Historical Municipal Archive of Antequera – mentions various gastronomical terms, the main ones being flour, milk and eggs, under the name ‘molletes reales’ (royal flatbreads).

The oldest commercial reference in documentation to the ‘mollete’ being made in Antequera is in a Capitulary Record dated 19 October 1775, in which a certain Manuel Esbri is granted a permit to ‘knead French bread and “molletes”...ensuring that both types are of good quality and fair weight’.

The municipality of Fuente de Piedra, which is included in the area where the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ is made, was the last municipality to gain independence from Antequera in 1838 (Muñoz Hidalgo and García Cañero, 1983: Historical Archive of Antequera) and the same tradition of making this product was preserved there.

Although there are no documented records of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ being made in the 19th century, master baker Juan Paradas Pérez from Antequera devoted part of his operations to bringing back the manufacture of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ in 1939. The ‘Mollete de Antequera’ products made by Paradas became deservedly famous and were in high demand in Antequera in the 1940s and 1950s. This recipe for making the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ has remained unchanged over several generations to the present day.

The choice of raw material (low-gluten wheat flour with a balanced stretch-resistance and dough-extensibility ratio (P/L), the high moisture content of the dough, the conditions whereby the dough is kneaded, formed into individual pieces and left to rise, the carefully-timed short oven time (light baking) and cooling are all decisive stages in ensuring the precise shape and delicate aroma of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’, which owes its soft, spongy texture to the double alveole structure of large and small holes. All of these stages are based on the expertise and experience of the master bakers of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’, whose tradition and best practices in making this product are linked to this territory.

The high moisture content (up to 45 %) and short baking time are typical qualities that are distinctive of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ based on the recipe by master baker Paradas, who made it a popular choice of breakfast bread in Antequera from the middle of the 20th century onwards. The reason for this popularity is that the toasting process enhances the softness and aromas of the crumb and the contrast between its texture and that of the crunchy crust, thus restoring all the qualities of the freshly-baked product. This quality was greatly appreciated by consumers in those days and even today, as it means that the ‘Molletes de Antequera’ can be consumed over the course of four or five days without going stale and maintaining the feeling of eating freshly-baked bread. Combined with the organoleptic properties of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’, this quality played a decisive role in the product acquiring a strong foothold in the market: initially in Antequera and then in the rest of Málaga province, followed by Andalusia as a whole and throughout the rest of Spain.

There are a huge number of bibliographical references to the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ which confirm just how well-known it is. We will now mention some of the publications in the last 25 years that have listed the qualities and sung the praises of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’: Gastronomía Antequerana (The Gastronomy of Antequera) (Juan Alcaide Vega, 1991); Diccionario Gastronómico. Términos, Refranes, Citas y Poemas (A Gastronomical Dictionary. Terms, Sayings, Quotes and Poems) (Luis F. Lescure, 2005); Ruta Gastronómica de Andalucía (A Gastronomical Route through Andalusia) (Inés Burtrón, 2009); 50 recetas con molletes de Antequera (50 Recipes featuring ‘Molletes de Antequera’) (Susana López Postigo, 2010); Route of Washington Irving from Seville to Granada (Turismo Andaluz S.A., 2000).

The Spanish King and Queen’s visit to Antequera in 1998 was reported by all the Spanish media outlets, including a specific mention that they were served the ‘famous molletes de Antequera’ with virgin olive oils from the locality.

Famous Spanish writer, journalist and Member of the Royal Spanish Academy since 2003, Arturo Pérez-Reverte, mentioned the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ in his book La piel del tambor (Drum Skin, 2002).

The Spanish Confederation of Bakers’ Organisations (CEOPAN) published a catalogue entitled Todos los panes tradicionales de España (All the Traditional Breads of Spain) in 2009, which included the ‘Mollete de Antequera’.

Finally, the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ was included in the Atlas of the Intangible Heritage of Andalusia, within the Province of Málaga and District of Antequera (Andalusian Institute of Historic Heritage, Regional Ministry of Culture, Government of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia).

The ‘Mollete de Antequera’ is now a very well-known product that can be bought throughout Spain.

Reference to publication of the specification

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

The full text of the product specification can be found at:

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/export/drupaljda/Pliego_Mollete_Antequera.pdf

or via the homepage of the Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, PESCA y Desarrollo Sostenible [Regional Ministry for Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Sustainable Development]

(https://juntadeandalucia.es/organismos/agriculturaganaderiapescaydesarrollosostenible.html),

Please follow this path: ‘Áreas de actividad’/‘Industrias y Cadena Agroalimentaria’/‘Calidad’/‘Denominaciones de Calidad’/‘Productos de panadería y repostería’. The Product Specification is located under the name of the quality designation.

---

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

(*1)  Dimensions of the ‘Mollete de Antequera’ in millimetres.

---

| 8.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/21

---

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

(2020/C 224/08)

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

COMMUNICATING THE APPROVAL OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT

‘ROSSO DI MONTEPULCIANO’

Reference number: PDO-IT-A1458-AM02

Date of communication: 21.4.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   ‘Rosso di Montepulciano’ – Labelling

A requirement has been added whereby the broader geographical term ‘Toscana’ [Tuscany] must appear on the label in addition to the protected designation of origin ‘Rosso di Montepulciano’.

The amendment makes it possible to provide precise information on the geographical origin of the wines.

The amendment concerns Section 9 of the single document and Article 7 of the product specification.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Rosso di Montepulciano

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

‘Rosso di Montepulciano’

Colour: ruby red;

Aroma: intensely vinous;

Taste: dry, long-lasting, slightly tannic;

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 11,50 %;

Minimum sugar-free extract (g/l): 21,00.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 20 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

20

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

‘Rosso di Montepulciano’

Specific oenological practice

Wine with the ‘Rosso di Montepulciano’ controlled designation of origin may not be released for consumption before 1 March of the year following that of grape production.

b.   Maximum yields

‘Rosso di Montepulciano’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

‘Rosso di Montepulciano’

70 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The grape production area falls within the administrative territory of the municipality of Montepulciano, in the province of Siena, Region of Tuscany.

It does not include the Valdichiana plain.

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

Sangiovese N. – Sangioveto

8.   Description of the link(s)

‘Rosso di Montepulciano’

The production area largely consists of Pliocene sands and it has a Mediterranean climate that helps to improve the grapes’ flavour and phenolic content. The variety grown in the vineyards is Sangiovese, in particular the local biotype known as Prugnolo Gentile, which is trained using the typical vertical trellis system. The age-old history of wine in Montepulciano from the Etruscan era to the present day is the basis for the human factors of experience and vine-growing know-how which, over time, in interaction with the environment, have allowed the identification, development and selection of the most appropriate practices for the production of high-quality wine.

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

‘Rosso di Montepulciano’ – Labelling

Legal framework:

EU legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

A requirement has been added whereby the broader geographical term ‘Toscana’ [Tuscany] must appear on the label in addition to the protected designation of origin ‘Rosso di Montepulciano’, so as to inform consumers of the exact geographical origin of the wines.

Link to the product specification

https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/15315

---

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

---