# Official Journal C 373/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 373 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 625 November 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 373

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 625 November 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 373/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9462 — Emil Frey Group/Autocommerce/Avto Triglav/AC-Mobil) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 373/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9462 — Emil Frey Group/Autocommerce/Avto Triglav/AC-Mobil) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2019/C 373/02 | Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 23 October 2019 on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (CON/2019/35) | 2 |

III   Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

European Central Bank

2019/C 373/02

Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank of 23 October 2019 on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (CON/2019/35)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 373/03 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 November 2019 — Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2019/C 373/04 | Commission Decision of 30 October 2019 notifying the Republic of Ecuador of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing | 4 |
| 2019/C 373/05 | Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (
  1
  ) | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 373/03

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 November 2019 — Euro exchange rates

3

2019/C 373/04

Commission Decision of 30 October 2019 notifying the Republic of Ecuador of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

4

2019/C 373/05

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (
  1
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006

1

11

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 373/06 | Call for proposals 2020 — EAC/A02/2019 Erasmus+ Programme | 12 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 373/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 16 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 373/08 | 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 | 18 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2019/C 373/06

Call for proposals 2020 — EAC/A02/2019 Erasmus+ Programme

12

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 373/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT) Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

16

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2019/C 373/08

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

18

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2018/C 100/09 of 14 March 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chianti Classico (PDO)) ( OJ C 100, 16.3.2018 ) | 26 |

Corrigenda

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2018/C 100/09 of 14 March 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chianti Classico (PDO)) ( OJ C 100, 16.3.2018 )

Official Journal of the European Union

( OJ C 100, 16.3.2018 )

26

---

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

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9462 — Emil Frey Group/Autocommerce/Avto Triglav/AC-Mobil)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 373/01)

On 18 October 2019, 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 32019M9462. 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 32019M9462. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

III Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

European Central Bank

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/2

---

Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank

of 23 October 2019

on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

(CON/2019/35)

(2019/C 373/02)

Introduction and legal basis

On 18 October 2019 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on Council Recommendation of 10 October 2019 (1) on the appointment of a member of the ECB’s Executive Board.

The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations

| 1. | The Council’s recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends that Fabio PANETTA be appointed as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s recommendation to appoint Fabio PANETTA as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 October 2019.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 17.10.2019, p. 1.

1

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/3

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

0,00 % on 1 November 2019

Euro exchange rates (2)

4 November 2019

(2019/C 373/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1158 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4713 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86368 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7035 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1021 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1668 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,511 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 328,78 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2588 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7542 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,3483 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6158 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4680 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7461 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7358 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5146 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 296,92 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,5296 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8425 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4488 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 643,31 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6311 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,376 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,5726 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,689 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4644 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,3095 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,9205 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1158

JPY

Japanese yen

120,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4713

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86368

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7035

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1021

ISK

Iceland króna

137,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1668

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,511

HUF

Hungarian forint

328,78

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2588

RON

Romanian leu

4,7542

TRY

Turkish lira

6,3483

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6158

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4680

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7461

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7358

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5146

KRW

South Korean won

1 296,92

ZAR

South African rand

16,5296

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8425

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4488

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 643,31

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6311

PHP

Philippine peso

56,376

RUB

Russian rouble

70,5726

THB

Thai baht

33,689

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4644

MXN

Mexican peso

21,3095

INR

Indian rupee

78,9205

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

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

---

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/4

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 30 October 2019

notifying the Republic of Ecuador of the possibility of being identified as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

(2019/C 373/04)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (1), and in particular Article 32 thereof,

Whereas:

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (the IUU Regulation) establishes a Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (the IUU Regulation) establishes a Union system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

| (2) | Chapter VI of the IUU Regulation lays down the procedure to identify non-cooperating third countries, the démarches in respect of such countries, the establishment of a list of such countries, the removal from that list, the publicity of that list and any emergency measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Chapter VI of the IUU Regulation lays down the procedure to identify non-cooperating third countries, the démarches in respect of such countries, the establishment of a list of such countries, the removal from that list, the publicity of that list and any emergency measures.

| (3) | Pursuant to Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to identify third countries that it considers as non-cooperating countries in the fight against IUU fishing. A third country is to be identified as non-cooperating if it fails to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Pursuant to Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to identify third countries that it considers as non-cooperating countries in the fight against IUU fishing. A third country is to be identified as non-cooperating if it fails to discharge the duties incumbent upon it under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State, to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

| (4) | Prior to identifying third countries as non-cooperating under Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to first notify third countries of the possibility of being identified as non-cooperating countries in accordance with Article 32 of that Regulation. Such notification is of a preliminary nature. The notification is to be based on the criteria laid down in Article 31 of the IUU Regulation. The Commission is also to take into account all the démarches set out in Article 32 of that Regulation with respect to the notified third countries. In particular, the Commission is to include in the notification information concerning the essential facts and considerations underlying such identification, provide those countries with the opportunity to respond and provide evidence refuting the identification or, where appropriate, a plan of action to improve and measures taken to rectify the situation. The Commission is to give to the notified third countries adequate time to answer the notification and reasonable time to remedy the situation. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Prior to identifying third countries as non-cooperating under Article 31 of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to first notify third countries of the possibility of being identified as non-cooperating countries in accordance with Article 32 of that Regulation. Such notification is of a preliminary nature. The notification is to be based on the criteria laid down in Article 31 of the IUU Regulation. The Commission is also to take into account all the démarches set out in Article 32 of that Regulation with respect to the notified third countries. In particular, the Commission is to include in the notification information concerning the essential facts and considerations underlying such identification, provide those countries with the opportunity to respond and provide evidence refuting the identification or, where appropriate, a plan of action to improve and measures taken to rectify the situation. The Commission is to give to the notified third countries adequate time to answer the notification and reasonable time to remedy the situation.

| (5) | The identification of non-cooperating third countries under Article 31 of the IUU Regulation is to be based on the review of all information as set out under Article 31(2) of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The identification of non-cooperating third countries under Article 31 of the IUU Regulation is to be based on the review of all information as set out under Article 31(2) of that Regulation.

| (6) | In accordance with Article 33 of the IUU Regulation, the Council is to establish a list of non-cooperating third countries. The measures set out, inter alia, in Article 38 of the IUU Regulation apply to those countries. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In accordance with Article 33 of the IUU Regulation, the Council is to establish a list of non-cooperating third countries. The measures set out, inter alia, in Article 38 of the IUU Regulation apply to those countries.

| (7) | Pursuant to Article 20(1) of the IUU Regulation, the acceptance of validated catch certificates from third country flag States is subject to a notification from the flag state concerned to the Commission of the arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by its fishing vessels. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Pursuant to Article 20(1) of the IUU Regulation, the acceptance of validated catch certificates from third country flag States is subject to a notification from the flag state concerned to the Commission of the arrangements for the implementation, control and enforcement of laws, regulations and conservation and management measures which must be complied with by its fishing vessels.

| (8) | In accordance with Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to cooperate administratively with third countries in areas pertaining to the implementation of the provisions of that Regulation relating to catch certification. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In accordance with Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission is to cooperate administratively with third countries in areas pertaining to the implementation of the provisions of that Regulation relating to catch certification.

2.   PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR

| (9) | The notification of the Republic of Ecuador (hereafter ‘Ecuador’) as flag State was received by the Commission in accordance with Article 20 of the IUU Regulation on the 22 July 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The notification of the Republic of Ecuador (hereafter ‘Ecuador’) as flag State was received by the Commission in accordance with Article 20 of the IUU Regulation on the 22 July 2009.

| (10) | Following this notification, the Commission initiated a process of administrative cooperation with the authorities of Ecuador as provided for in Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation. This cooperation covered issues pertaining to the implementation of the European Union catch certification scheme and to the national arrangements in place for the implementation, control, renewal and enforcement of the fisheries legal framework and applicable conservation and management measures. It entailed exchange of oral and written comments as well as five visits to Ecuador between 30 January and 6 February 2014, 22 and 24 September 2015, 11 and 15 December 2017, 12 and 16 November 2018, and 17 and 21 June 2019, where the Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary concerning the measures taken by Ecuador in order to implement its obligations in the fight against IUU fishing. A delegation from Ecuador also visited DG MARE on the 2 July 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Following this notification, the Commission initiated a process of administrative cooperation with the authorities of Ecuador as provided for in Article 20(4) of the IUU Regulation. This cooperation covered issues pertaining to the implementation of the European Union catch certification scheme and to the national arrangements in place for the implementation, control, renewal and enforcement of the fisheries legal framework and applicable conservation and management measures. It entailed exchange of oral and written comments as well as five visits to Ecuador between 30 January and 6 February 2014, 22 and 24 September 2015, 11 and 15 December 2017, 12 and 16 November 2018, and 17 and 21 June 2019, where the Commission sought and verified all information deemed necessary concerning the measures taken by Ecuador in order to implement its obligations in the fight against IUU fishing. A delegation from Ecuador also visited DG MARE on the 2 July 2015.

| (11) | Ecuador is a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), a cooperating non-member of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCFPC) and a non-contracting party voluntarily participating in the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) catch documentation scheme. Ecuador has ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (2), the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) (3), and the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) (4). |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Ecuador is a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), a cooperating non-member of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCFPC) and a non-contracting party voluntarily participating in the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) catch documentation scheme. Ecuador has ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (2), the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) (3), and the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) (4).

| (12) | In order to evaluate the compliance of Ecuador with its international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market State as set out in the international agreements referred to in recital (11) and established by the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), the Commission sought, collected and analysed all necessary information required for the purpose of this exercise. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In order to evaluate the compliance of Ecuador with its international obligations as flag, port, coastal or market State as set out in the international agreements referred to in recital (11) and established by the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), the Commission sought, collected and analysed all necessary information required for the purpose of this exercise.

3.   POSSIBILITY OF ECUADOR BEING IDENTIFIED AS A NON-COOPERATING THIRD COUNTRY

| (13) | Pursuant to Article 31(3) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the duties of Ecuador as flag, port, coastal or market State. For the purpose of this review the Commission took into account the criteria listed in Article 31(4) to (7) of the IUU Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Pursuant to Article 31(3) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed the duties of Ecuador as flag, port, coastal or market State. For the purpose of this review the Commission took into account the criteria listed in Article 31(4) to (7) of the IUU Regulation.

3.1.   Measures taken in respect of recurrence of IUU fishing activities and IUU trade flows (Article 31(4) of the IUU Regulation)

| (14) | In accordance with Article 31(4)(a), the Commission analysed the measures taken by Ecuador with respect to any recurrent IUU fishing carried out or supported by fishing vessels flying its flag or by its nationals, or by fishing vessels operating in its maritime waters or using its ports. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In accordance with Article 31(4)(a), the Commission analysed the measures taken by Ecuador with respect to any recurrent IUU fishing carried out or supported by fishing vessels flying its flag or by its nationals, or by fishing vessels operating in its maritime waters or using its ports.

| (15) | The information gathered by the Commission demonstrated that in 2017 there were at least 24 longliners greater than 23 meters length overall fishing for species covered by the IATTC Convention within the IATTC Convention Area and which were not on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register. Although Ecuadorian authorities subsequently reported that this breach of IATTC Resolutions C-11-05 and C-14-01 (subsequently replaced by Resolution C-18-06), which could entail IUU listing of the vessels pursuant to Resolution C-15-01, had been addressed and that all the vessels concerned had been added to the IATTC Regional Vessel Register, in 2019 the Commission identified again a similar case. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The information gathered by the Commission demonstrated that in 2017 there were at least 24 longliners greater than 23 meters length overall fishing for species covered by the IATTC Convention within the IATTC Convention Area and which were not on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register. Although Ecuadorian authorities subsequently reported that this breach of IATTC Resolutions C-11-05 and C-14-01 (subsequently replaced by Resolution C-18-06), which could entail IUU listing of the vessels pursuant to Resolution C-15-01, had been addressed and that all the vessels concerned had been added to the IATTC Regional Vessel Register, in 2019 the Commission identified again a similar case.

| (16) | The information collected by the Commission also led to the identification of two squid-jiggers that engaged in 2015 and early 2016 in fishing activities in the SPRFMO Convention area, but were not at that moment on the SPRFMO Record of vessels authorised to fish in the Convention Area. Although Ecuadorian authorities acknowledged these were illegal activities, in June 2019 there were still no sanction procedure initiated against the operator of the two vessels. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The information collected by the Commission also led to the identification of two squid-jiggers that engaged in 2015 and early 2016 in fishing activities in the SPRFMO Convention area, but were not at that moment on the SPRFMO Record of vessels authorised to fish in the Convention Area. Although Ecuadorian authorities acknowledged these were illegal activities, in June 2019 there were still no sanction procedure initiated against the operator of the two vessels.

| (17) | During the visits to the country, the Commission also detected various cases of Ecuadorian vessels fishing in waters under jurisdiction of third countries. In such cases, Ecuadorian authorities were not able to confirm whether the vessels concerned had been duly authorised by the country concerned to fish in its waters. The same issue arose again during the visit made in 2019. In spite of the recurrence of the described situation, Ecuadorian authorities have not put in place the appropriate mechanisms of cooperation with third countries where the Ecuadorian fleet operates. The existing cooperation agreement in place with a neighbouring country does not contemplate exchange of information on fishing licences, and the arrangement with another neighbouring country is still in preparation. During the last visit to Ecuador, authorities were also unable to provide information on the follow-up given to a case identified in 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

During the visits to the country, the Commission also detected various cases of Ecuadorian vessels fishing in waters under jurisdiction of third countries. In such cases, Ecuadorian authorities were not able to confirm whether the vessels concerned had been duly authorised by the country concerned to fish in its waters. The same issue arose again during the visit made in 2019. In spite of the recurrence of the described situation, Ecuadorian authorities have not put in place the appropriate mechanisms of cooperation with third countries where the Ecuadorian fleet operates. The existing cooperation agreement in place with a neighbouring country does not contemplate exchange of information on fishing licences, and the arrangement with another neighbouring country is still in preparation. During the last visit to Ecuador, authorities were also unable to provide information on the follow-up given to a case identified in 2017.

| (18) | Contrary to points 36 and 42 of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IPOA IUU) (5), the procedures in place prior to the registration of a fishing vessel do not entail a comprehensive verification of the history of the vessel and are limited to a verification of the RFMOs IUU lists. The Commission collected suitable evidence that at least one vessel with a problematic compliance history had been registered in Ecuador and in 2017 escaped to the control of the authorities, which were unable to locate it. Subsequent exchanges indicated as well that due to the currently applicable legislation Ecuadorian authorities had been, so far, unable to deregister the vessel and to impose sanctions of adequate severity. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Contrary to points 36 and 42 of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IPOA IUU) (5), the procedures in place prior to the registration of a fishing vessel do not entail a comprehensive verification of the history of the vessel and are limited to a verification of the RFMOs IUU lists. The Commission collected suitable evidence that at least one vessel with a problematic compliance history had been registered in Ecuador and in 2017 escaped to the control of the authorities, which were unable to locate it. Subsequent exchanges indicated as well that due to the currently applicable legislation Ecuadorian authorities had been, so far, unable to deregister the vessel and to impose sanctions of adequate severity.

| (19) | Hence, the evidence retrieved by the Commission demonstrates that specific weaknesses that were notified to the Ecuadorian authorities during the missions of 2017 and 2018, and resulting in possible or confirmed IUU activities, remain poorly addressed in 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Hence, the evidence retrieved by the Commission demonstrates that specific weaknesses that were notified to the Ecuadorian authorities during the missions of 2017 and 2018, and resulting in possible or confirmed IUU activities, remain poorly addressed in 2019.

| (20) | With regard to the information laid out in recitals (15), (16), (17), (18) and (19), the Commission concluded that Ecuador failed to uphold its responsibilities as a flag State to prevent its fleet from engaging in IUU activities in high seas or waters of third countries. This is in breach of Article 94(1) and (2) of UNCLOS which provides that every State shall effectively ensure its jurisdiction and control over vessels flying its flag. It is also not in line with point 24 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) IPOA-IUU that provides for the obligation to undertake comprehensive and effective control of fishing activities. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

With regard to the information laid out in recitals (15), (16), (17), (18) and (19), the Commission concluded that Ecuador failed to uphold its responsibilities as a flag State to prevent its fleet from engaging in IUU activities in high seas or waters of third countries. This is in breach of Article 94(1) and (2) of UNCLOS which provides that every State shall effectively ensure its jurisdiction and control over vessels flying its flag. It is also not in line with point 24 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) IPOA-IUU that provides for the obligation to undertake comprehensive and effective control of fishing activities.

| (21) | Pursuant to Article 31(4)(b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission examined the measures taken by Ecuador in respect of access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing to its market and subsequent trade flows. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Pursuant to Article 31(4)(b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission examined the measures taken by Ecuador in respect of access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing to its market and subsequent trade flows.

| (22) | The Commission analysed documentation and other information relating to monitoring and control procedures and considers that Ecuador cannot ensure that fish and fishery products entering its market and processing plants do not stem from IUU fishing. Ecuadorian authorities were not able to demonstrate they are collecting and verifying all the necessary information required to control the legality of fish entering their market or destined to others. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Commission analysed documentation and other information relating to monitoring and control procedures and considers that Ecuador cannot ensure that fish and fishery products entering its market and processing plants do not stem from IUU fishing. Ecuadorian authorities were not able to demonstrate they are collecting and verifying all the necessary information required to control the legality of fish entering their market or destined to others.

| (23) | Findings made during the missions especially question the level of control that Ecuadorian authorities exert on processing plants. In 2017, the Commission detected significant inconsistencies in the information reported by a processing plant. Nevertheless the figures provided by this processing plant had been endorsed without further verifications by Ecuadorian authorities, and it was only upon Commission’s intervention that additional verifications were eventually carried out, resulting in the confirmation of serious misreporting by this processing plant. In 2018, the Commission also detected fish lots in the cold store of a processing plant whereas the Ecuadorian Fisheries Administration was unaware of these lots having entered the plant. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Findings made during the missions especially question the level of control that Ecuadorian authorities exert on processing plants. In 2017, the Commission detected significant inconsistencies in the information reported by a processing plant. Nevertheless the figures provided by this processing plant had been endorsed without further verifications by Ecuadorian authorities, and it was only upon Commission’s intervention that additional verifications were eventually carried out, resulting in the confirmation of serious misreporting by this processing plant. In 2018, the Commission also detected fish lots in the cold store of a processing plant whereas the Ecuadorian Fisheries Administration was unaware of these lots having entered the plant.

| (24) | Information obtained from Ecuadorian authorities also points to the conclusion that controls on processing plants supplies remain based on random sampling rather than focusing on high-risks scenarios. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Information obtained from Ecuadorian authorities also points to the conclusion that controls on processing plants supplies remain based on random sampling rather than focusing on high-risks scenarios.

| (25) | In preparation for the missions to the country, the European Fisheries Control Agency analysed samples of catch certificates and processing statements originating from Ecuador. All these analysis revealed mistakes at the level of validation of catch certificates stemming from superficial verification of information provided by the operators in these documents, which the Ecuadorian authorities acknowledged. The latest analysis carried out in 2019 also showed that Ecuadorian authorities were endorsing processing statements referring to processing of quantities of fish higher than in the supporting catch certificates. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

In preparation for the missions to the country, the European Fisheries Control Agency analysed samples of catch certificates and processing statements originating from Ecuador. All these analysis revealed mistakes at the level of validation of catch certificates stemming from superficial verification of information provided by the operators in these documents, which the Ecuadorian authorities acknowledged. The latest analysis carried out in 2019 also showed that Ecuadorian authorities were endorsing processing statements referring to processing of quantities of fish higher than in the supporting catch certificates.

| (26) | The information described in recitals (22), (23), (24) and (25) demonstrates that fishery products landed, processed in or traded through Ecuador do not comply with sustainable post-harvest rules as described in Article 11 of the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, Ecuador has failed to impose rules to ensure the traceability of fish or fish products through the market in accordance with points 67 to 69 and 71 to 72 of the IPOA-IUU. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The information described in recitals (22), (23), (24) and (25) demonstrates that fishery products landed, processed in or traded through Ecuador do not comply with sustainable post-harvest rules as described in Article 11 of the FAO Code of Conduct. Furthermore, Ecuador has failed to impose rules to ensure the traceability of fish or fish products through the market in accordance with points 67 to 69 and 71 to 72 of the IPOA-IUU.

| (27) | In view of the considerations presented in this Section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission, as well as all the statements made by the competent authorities of Ecuador, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3), (4)(a) and (4)(b) of the IUU Regulation, that Ecuador fails to discharge its duties under international law as a flag, port, coastal and market State in respect of IUU fishing carried out or supported by fishing vessels flying its flag or by its nationals, and to prevent access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing to its market. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

In view of the considerations presented in this Section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission, as well as all the statements made by the competent authorities of Ecuador, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3), (4)(a) and (4)(b) of the IUU Regulation, that Ecuador fails to discharge its duties under international law as a flag, port, coastal and market State in respect of IUU fishing carried out or supported by fishing vessels flying its flag or by its nationals, and to prevent access of fisheries products stemming from IUU fishing to its market.

3.2.   Failure to cooperate and to enforce (Article 31(5) of the IUU Regulation)

| (28) | Under Article 31(5)(a) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed its collaboration with Ecuador to see if the authorities had effectively cooperated in responding to questions, providing feedback or investigating matters related to IUU fishing and associated activities. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Under Article 31(5)(a) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed its collaboration with Ecuador to see if the authorities had effectively cooperated in responding to questions, providing feedback or investigating matters related to IUU fishing and associated activities.

| (29) | While Ecuadorian authorities have been generally cooperative in responding and providing feedback to requests for information, on various occasions there was limited follow-up on issues raised by the Commission. As an example, the Commission did not receive clear and comprehensive explanations on the significant discrepancies it observed between quantities of fish landed by purse seiners and the carrying capacity and fish hold volumes reported to the IATTC, whereas carrying capacity and fish hold volumes are the elements that IATTC uses to manage the fishing capacity in the Eastern Pacific, including through 72 days annual fishing stops applying to vessels exceeding 182 metric tons carrying capacity. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

While Ecuadorian authorities have been generally cooperative in responding and providing feedback to requests for information, on various occasions there was limited follow-up on issues raised by the Commission. As an example, the Commission did not receive clear and comprehensive explanations on the significant discrepancies it observed between quantities of fish landed by purse seiners and the carrying capacity and fish hold volumes reported to the IATTC, whereas carrying capacity and fish hold volumes are the elements that IATTC uses to manage the fishing capacity in the Eastern Pacific, including through 72 days annual fishing stops applying to vessels exceeding 182 metric tons carrying capacity.

| (30) | As underlined in recitals (15), (16), (17) and (25), there is also a lack of continuity and consistence in efforts to address the identified shortcomings. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

As underlined in recitals (15), (16), (17) and (25), there is also a lack of continuity and consistence in efforts to address the identified shortcomings.

| (31) | In accordance with Article 31(5)(b), the Commission analysed existing enforcement measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing in Ecuador. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

In accordance with Article 31(5)(b), the Commission analysed existing enforcement measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing in Ecuador.

| (32) | The current sanction system is based on the Fisheries Law which was adopted in 1974 and complemented in 2016 by the Decree 852. However, the sanctions contemplated in the Decree 852, and which were originally designed to compensate for the weakness of the ones in the 1974 Fisheries Law, have been seldom applied since the entry into force of this Decree. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The current sanction system is based on the Fisheries Law which was adopted in 1974 and complemented in 2016 by the Decree 852. However, the sanctions contemplated in the Decree 852, and which were originally designed to compensate for the weakness of the ones in the 1974 Fisheries Law, have been seldom applied since the entry into force of this Decree.

| (33) | Consequently, the sanctioning scheme remains based on a weak and outdated legal framework, which lacks a definition of IUU activities and provides for a level of sanctions which fails to ensure deterrence of these sanctions. The maximum fine imposed in Ecuador for industrial vessels in 2018, irrespective of the gravity of the infringement and the value of the fishery products involved, did not exceed 4 500 USD. In addition, Ecuadorian authorities also acknowledged that they face legal and practical issues to recover the fines, and cumbersome administrative procedures often result in practical impossibility to address recidivism. Information provided by Ecuadorian authorities also suggests uneven approach in relation to the application of sanctions, notably as regards the confiscation of illegal catches. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

Consequently, the sanctioning scheme remains based on a weak and outdated legal framework, which lacks a definition of IUU activities and provides for a level of sanctions which fails to ensure deterrence of these sanctions. The maximum fine imposed in Ecuador for industrial vessels in 2018, irrespective of the gravity of the infringement and the value of the fishery products involved, did not exceed 4 500 USD. In addition, Ecuadorian authorities also acknowledged that they face legal and practical issues to recover the fines, and cumbersome administrative procedures often result in practical impossibility to address recidivism. Information provided by Ecuadorian authorities also suggests uneven approach in relation to the application of sanctions, notably as regards the confiscation of illegal catches.

| (34) | Moreover, the entry into force of a new fisheries Law and the development of a revised sanctioning scheme has been repeatedly delayed since 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Moreover, the entry into force of a new fisheries Law and the development of a revised sanctioning scheme has been repeatedly delayed since 2015.

| (35) | Consequently, the current sanction system fails to address point 16 of the IPOA-IUU, which states that national legislation should address IUU fishing as well as point 21 which states that States should ensure that sanctions for IUU fishing by vessels and, to the greatest extent possible, by nationals under their jurisdiction, are of sufficient severity to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from such fishing. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Consequently, the current sanction system fails to address point 16 of the IPOA-IUU, which states that national legislation should address IUU fishing as well as point 21 which states that States should ensure that sanctions for IUU fishing by vessels and, to the greatest extent possible, by nationals under their jurisdiction, are of sufficient severity to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from such fishing.

| (36) | In light of the information gathered on the legal framework and the sanction procedures, the Commission concluded that Ecuador failed to apply Article 19(2) of UNFSA, which states that sanctions must be adequate in severity to secure compliance and discourage violations, as well as to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from their illegal activities. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

In light of the information gathered on the legal framework and the sanction procedures, the Commission concluded that Ecuador failed to apply Article 19(2) of UNFSA, which states that sanctions must be adequate in severity to secure compliance and discourage violations, as well as to deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from their illegal activities.

| (37) | In accordance with Article 31(5)(c), the Commission analysed the extent and gravity of the manifestations of IUU fishing considered. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

In accordance with Article 31(5)(c), the Commission analysed the extent and gravity of the manifestations of IUU fishing considered.

| (38) | The visits conducted by the Commission revealed serious and recurrent issues in the control of vessels and fish processed in the country, as reflected notably in recitals (15), (16), (17), (18), (23) and (24). These issues result in significant risks of large volumes of fish stemming from IUU activities being traded or processed in Ecuador. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

The visits conducted by the Commission revealed serious and recurrent issues in the control of vessels and fish processed in the country, as reflected notably in recitals (15), (16), (17), (18), (23) and (24). These issues result in significant risks of large volumes of fish stemming from IUU activities being traded or processed in Ecuador.

| (39) | It is also pertinent to mention that Ecuador was also identified in the United States of America National Marine Fisheries Service report to Congress of 2017 (6) as having vessels engaged in IUU fishing. In particular, Ecuador was identified for having 25 vessels acting in violation of IATTC resolutions in 2014 and 2015. The report states that several of the vessels included repeat offenders from the 2015 and prior round of identifications. In addition, the Commission collected evidence that several of the vessels have also been subject to infringement administrative procedures by Ecuador in 2018 and 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

It is also pertinent to mention that Ecuador was also identified in the United States of America National Marine Fisheries Service report to Congress of 2017 (6) as having vessels engaged in IUU fishing. In particular, Ecuador was identified for having 25 vessels acting in violation of IATTC resolutions in 2014 and 2015. The report states that several of the vessels included repeat offenders from the 2015 and prior round of identifications. In addition, the Commission collected evidence that several of the vessels have also been subject to infringement administrative procedures by Ecuador in 2018 and 2019.

| (40) | In view of the considerations presented in this Section, and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission, as well as all the statements made by the Ecuadorian authorities, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (5) of the IUU Regulation, that Ecuador failed to discharge its duties under international law with respect to cooperation and enforcement. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

In view of the considerations presented in this Section, and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission, as well as all the statements made by the Ecuadorian authorities, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (5) of the IUU Regulation, that Ecuador failed to discharge its duties under international law with respect to cooperation and enforcement.

3.3.   Failure to implement international rules (Article 31(6) of the IUU Regulation)

| (41) | In accordance with Article 31(6)(a) and (b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed Ecuador’s ratification or accession to relevant international fisheries instruments and its status as a contracting party to regional fisheries management organisations or its agreement to apply the conservation and management measures adopted by them. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

In accordance with Article 31(6)(a) and (b) of the IUU Regulation, the Commission analysed Ecuador’s ratification or accession to relevant international fisheries instruments and its status as a contracting party to regional fisheries management organisations or its agreement to apply the conservation and management measures adopted by them.

| (42) | Ecuador ratified UNCLOS in 2012, and the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (UNFSA) in 2016. Ecuador has also acceded the 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) in 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

Ecuador ratified UNCLOS in 2012, and the Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (UNFSA) in 2016. Ecuador has also acceded the 2009 FAO Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) in 2019.

| (43) | However, the current national legal framework does not provide for a comprehensive implementation of the PSMA. Ecuadorian authorities reported for instance that there is no legally established mechanism to ensure the control of transhipments in ports. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

However, the current national legal framework does not provide for a comprehensive implementation of the PSMA. Ecuadorian authorities reported for instance that there is no legally established mechanism to ensure the control of transhipments in ports.

| (44) | The information gathered by the Commission also demonstrates that initiation of a sanction procedure for serious infringement (undertaking a fishing trip during the annual fishing stop imposed by IATTC) took place more than 17 months after the infringement, while Article 19(1)(b) of the UNFSA requests States to investigate immediately and fully any alleged violation of subregional or regional conservation and management measures. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

The information gathered by the Commission also demonstrates that initiation of a sanction procedure for serious infringement (undertaking a fishing trip during the annual fishing stop imposed by IATTC) took place more than 17 months after the infringement, while Article 19(1)(b) of the UNFSA requests States to investigate immediately and fully any alleged violation of subregional or regional conservation and management measures.

| (45) | In accordance with Article 31(6)(c), the Commission analysed any act or omission by the third country concerned that may have diminished the effectiveness of applicable laws, regulations or international conservation and management measures. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

In accordance with Article 31(6)(c), the Commission analysed any act or omission by the third country concerned that may have diminished the effectiveness of applicable laws, regulations or international conservation and management measures.

| (46) | As described in recital (11), Ecuador is a member of IATTC and SPRFMO, a cooperating non-member of WCPFC and a non-contracting party voluntarily participating in the CCAMLR’s catch documentation scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

As described in recital (11), Ecuador is a member of IATTC and SPRFMO, a cooperating non-member of WCPFC and a non-contracting party voluntarily participating in the CCAMLR’s catch documentation scheme.

| (47) | As described in recitals (15) and (16), several vessels have been operating over the recent years without proper registration with the RFMOs concerned. This has resulted in illegal and unreported fishing by these vessels. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

As described in recitals (15) and (16), several vessels have been operating over the recent years without proper registration with the RFMOs concerned. This has resulted in illegal and unreported fishing by these vessels.

| (48) | As described in recitals (33) and (39), failure to enforce deterrent sanctions also resulted in recidivism by Ecuadorian vessels operating in the IATTC area and therefore additional breaches of the conservation and management measures adopted by this organisation. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

As described in recitals (33) and (39), failure to enforce deterrent sanctions also resulted in recidivism by Ecuadorian vessels operating in the IATTC area and therefore additional breaches of the conservation and management measures adopted by this organisation.

| (49) | The absence of a structured and risk-based strategy for the management of inspection activities also results in a failure to ensure that the main compliance risks are addressed, as underlined for instance in recital (23). |
| --- | --- |

(49)

The absence of a structured and risk-based strategy for the management of inspection activities also results in a failure to ensure that the main compliance risks are addressed, as underlined for instance in recital (23).

| (50) | In view of the considerations presented in this Section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by the Ecuadorian authorities, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (6) of the IUU Regulation, that Ecuador failed to discharge all the duties incumbent upon it under international law with respect to international rules, regulations and conservation and management measures. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

In view of the considerations presented in this Section and on the basis of all factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by the Ecuadorian authorities, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(3) and (6) of the IUU Regulation, that Ecuador failed to discharge all the duties incumbent upon it under international law with respect to international rules, regulations and conservation and management measures.

3.4.   Specific constraints of developing countries (Article 31(7) of the IUU Regulations)

| (51) | According to the United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI) (7), in 2017 Ecuador was considered a high human development country ranked 86 out of 189 countries (8). |
| --- | --- |

(51)

According to the United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI) (7), in 2017 Ecuador was considered a high human development country ranked 86 out of 189 countries (8).

| (52) | Account taken of the above UNHDI ranking and observations during the 2017 to 2019 visits, no evidence suggests that the failure of Ecuador to discharge its duties under international law is the result of low levels of development. No tangible evidence exists to correlate shortcomings in fisheries legal framework, monitoring, control and surveillance, and traceability systems, with poor capacity and infrastructure. The Commission responded positively to the requests made by Ecuador for support in the revision of its fisheries legal framework. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

Account taken of the above UNHDI ranking and observations during the 2017 to 2019 visits, no evidence suggests that the failure of Ecuador to discharge its duties under international law is the result of low levels of development. No tangible evidence exists to correlate shortcomings in fisheries legal framework, monitoring, control and surveillance, and traceability systems, with poor capacity and infrastructure. The Commission responded positively to the requests made by Ecuador for support in the revision of its fisheries legal framework.

| (53) | In view of the situation explained in this Section and on the basis of all the factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by the country, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(7) of the IUU Regulation, that the development status and overall performance of Ecuador with respect to fisheries management are not impaired by its level of development. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

In view of the situation explained in this Section and on the basis of all the factual elements gathered by the Commission as well as all the statements made by the country, there are strong indications, pursuant to Article 31(7) of the IUU Regulation, that the development status and overall performance of Ecuador with respect to fisheries management are not impaired by its level of development.

4.   CONCLUSION ON THE POSSIBLE IDENTIFICATION AS A NON-COOPERATING THIRD COUNTRY

| (54) | In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the failure of Ecuador to discharge its duties under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State and to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, Ecuador should be notified, in accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in fighting IUU fishing. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to the failure of Ecuador to discharge its duties under international law as flag, port, coastal or market State and to take action to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing, Ecuador should be notified, in accordance with Article 32 of the IUU Regulation, of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in fighting IUU fishing.

| (55) | The Commission should also take all the démarches set out in Article 32 of the IUU Regulation with respect to Ecuador. In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which that country may respond in writing to the notification and rectify the situation. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

The Commission should also take all the démarches set out in Article 32 of the IUU Regulation with respect to Ecuador. In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which that country may respond in writing to the notification and rectify the situation.

| (56) | Furthermore, the notification to Ecuador of the possibility of being identified as a country which the Commission considers to be a non-cooperating third country for the purposes of this Decision does neither preclude nor automatically entail any subsequent step taken by the Commission or the Council for the purpose of the identification and the establishment of a list of non-cooperating third countries, |
| --- | --- |

(56)

Furthermore, the notification to Ecuador of the possibility of being identified as a country which the Commission considers to be a non-cooperating third country for the purposes of this Decision does neither preclude nor automatically entail any subsequent step taken by the Commission or the Council for the purpose of the identification and the establishment of a list of non-cooperating third countries,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Ecuador shall be notified of the possibility of being identified by the Commission as a non-cooperating third country in fighting illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2019.

For the Commission

Karmenu VELLA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1.

1

(2)  https://treaties.un.org/

2

(3)  https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm

3

(4)  http://www.fao.org/port-state-measures/background/parties-psma/en/

4

(5)  International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001.

5

(6)  https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-activities#magnuson-stevens-reauthorization-act-biennial-reports-to-congress

6

(7)  Information from: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

7

(8)  http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/ECU.pdf

8

---

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/11

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 373/05)

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2019) 7683 | 29 October 2019 | Potassium dichromate
  EC No 231-906-6, CAS No 7778-50-9 | Wesco Aircraft EMEA Limited, Lawrence House, Riverside drive, BD19 4DH Cleckheaton West Yorkshire, United Kingdom | REACH/19/31/0 | Sealing after anodizing applications by the aerospace sector where the key functionalities of corrosion resistance or corrosion inhibition are necessary for the intended use. | 21 September 2024 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2019) 7683

29 October 2019

Potassium dichromate

EC No 231-906-6, CAS No 7778-50-9

Wesco Aircraft EMEA Limited, Lawrence House, Riverside drive, BD19 4DH Cleckheaton West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

REACH/19/31/0

Sealing after anodizing applications by the aerospace sector where the key functionalities of corrosion resistance or corrosion inhibition are necessary for the intended use.

21 September 2024

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/12

---

Call for proposals 2020 — EAC/A02/2019

Erasmus+ Programme

(2019/C 373/06)

1.   Introduction and objectives

This call for proposals is based on the Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport (1) as well as on the 2019 and 2020 Erasmus+ Annual Work Programmes. The Erasmus+ Programme covers the period 2014 to 2020. The general and specific objectives of the Erasmus+ Programme are listed in Articles 4, 5, 11 and 16 of the Regulation.

2.   Actions

This call for proposals covers the following actions of the Erasmus+ Programme:

| | Key Action 1 (KA1) - Learning mobility of individuals







  — | Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth |
| --- | --- | --- |

Key Action 1 (KA1) - Learning mobility of individuals

—

Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth

| — | Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees |
| --- | --- |

—

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

| | Key Action 2 (KA2) - Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices







  — | Strategic partnerships in the field of education, training and youth |
| --- | --- | --- |

Key Action 2 (KA2) - Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices

—

Strategic partnerships in the field of education, training and youth

| — | European Universities |
| --- | --- |

—

European Universities

| — | Knowledge Alliances |
| --- | --- |

—

Knowledge Alliances

| — | Sector Skills Alliances |
| --- | --- |

—

Sector Skills Alliances

| — | Capacity building in the field of higher education |
| --- | --- |

—

Capacity building in the field of higher education

| — | Capacity building in the field of youth |
| --- | --- |

—

Capacity building in the field of youth

| | Key Action 3 (KA3) - Support for policy reform







  — | Youth Dialogue projects |
| --- | --- | --- |

Key Action 3 (KA3) - Support for policy reform

—

Youth Dialogue projects

| | Jean Monnet activities







  — | Jean Monnet Chairs |
| --- | --- | --- |

Jean Monnet activities

—

Jean Monnet Chairs

| — | Jean Monnet Modules |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Modules

| — | Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence

| — | Jean Monnet Support to Associations |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Support to Associations

| — | Jean Monnet Networks |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Networks

| — | Jean Monnet Projects |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Projects

| | Sport







  — | Collaborative partnerships |
| --- | --- | --- |

Sport

—

Collaborative partnerships

| — | Small collaborative partnerships |
| --- | --- |

—

Small collaborative partnerships

| — | Not-for-profit European sport events |
| --- | --- |

—

Not-for-profit European sport events

3.   Eligibility

Any public or private body active in the fields of education, training, youth and sport may apply for funding within the Erasmus+ Programme. In addition, groups of young people who are active in youth work, but not necessarily in the context of a youth organisation, may apply for funding for learning mobility of young people and youth workers as well as for Strategic partnerships in the field of youth.

The following Programme Countries can fully take part in all Erasmus+ Programme actions (2):

| — | the Member States of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Member States of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway,

| — | EU candidate countries: Turkey, North Macedonia and Serbia. |
| --- | --- |

—

EU candidate countries: Turkey, North Macedonia and Serbia.

In addition, certain Erasmus+ Programme actions are open to organisations from partner countries.

Please refer to the Erasmus+ Programme Guide for further details on the modalities of participation.

For British applicants: Please be aware that eligibility criteria must be complied with for the entire duration of the grant. If the United Kingdom withdraws from the EU during the grant period without concluding an agreement with the EU ensuring in particular that British applicants continue to be eligible, you will cease to receive EU funding (while continuing, where possible, to participate) or be required to leave the project on the basis of the relevant provisions of the grant agreement on termination.

4.   Budget and duration of projects

The implementation of this call for proposals is subject to the availability of the appropriations provided for in the draft budget for 2020 after the adoption of the budget for 2020 by the budgetary authority or if the budget is not adopted as provided for in the system of provisional twelfths.

The total budget earmarked for this call for proposals is estimated at EUR 3 207,4 million:

| Education and Training: | EUR | 2 943,3 million (3) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Youth: | EUR | 191,9 million |
| Jean Monnet: | EUR | 14,6 million |
| Sport: | EUR | 57,6 million |

Education and Training:

EUR

2 943,3 million (3)

Youth:

EUR

191,9 million

Jean Monnet:

EUR

14,6 million

Sport:

EUR

57,6 million

The total budget earmarked for the call for proposals as well as its repartition is indicative and may be modified subject to an amendment of the Erasmus+ Annual Work Programmes. Potential applicants are invited to regularly consult the Erasmus+ Annual Work Programmes and their amendments, published on:

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/documents/annual-work-programmes_en

as regards the available budget for each action covered by the call.

The level of grants awarded as well as the duration of projects vary depending on factors such as the type of project and the number of partners involved.

5.   Deadline for the submission of applications

All deadlines for submission of applications specified below are set at Brussels time.

| Key Action 1 |
| --- |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of youth | 5 February 2020 at 12.00 |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of higher education | 5 February 2020 at 12.00 |
| Mobility of individuals in VET, school education and adult education fields | 5 February 2020 at 12.00 |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of youth | 30 April 2020 at 12.00 |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of youth | 1 October 2020 at 12.00 |
| Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees | 13 February 2020 at 17.00 |

Key Action 1

Mobility of individuals in the field of youth

5 February 2020 at 12.00

Mobility of individuals in the field of higher education

5 February 2020 at 12.00

Mobility of individuals in VET, school education and adult education fields

5 February 2020 at 12.00

Mobility of individuals in the field of youth

30 April 2020 at 12.00

Mobility of individuals in the field of youth

1 October 2020 at 12.00

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

13 February 2020 at 17.00

| Key Action 2 |
| --- |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 5 February 2020 at 12.00 |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of education and training | 24 March 2020 at 12.00 |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 30 April 2020 at 12.00 |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 1 October 2020 at 12.00 |
| European Universities | 26 February 2020 at 17.00 |
| Knowledge Alliances | 26 February 2020 at 17.00 |
| Sector Skills Alliances | 26 February 2020 at 17.00 |
| Capacity building in the field of higher education | 5 February 2020 at 17.00 |
| Capacity building in the field of youth | 5 February 2020 at 17.00 |

Key Action 2

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

5 February 2020 at 12.00

Strategic partnerships in the field of education and training

24 March 2020 at 12.00

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

30 April 2020 at 12.00

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

1 October 2020 at 12.00

European Universities

26 February 2020 at 17.00

Knowledge Alliances

26 February 2020 at 17.00

Sector Skills Alliances

26 February 2020 at 17.00

Capacity building in the field of higher education

5 February 2020 at 17.00

Capacity building in the field of youth

5 February 2020 at 17.00

| Key Action 3 |
| --- |
| Youth Dialogue projects | 5 February 2020 at 12.00
  30 April 2020 at 12.00
  1 October 2020 at 12.00 |

Key Action 3

Youth Dialogue projects

5 February 2020 at 12.00

30 April 2020 at 12.00

1 October 2020 at 12.00

| Jean Monnet actions |
| --- |
| Chairs, Modules, Centres of Excellence, Support to Associations, Networks, Projects | 20 February 2020 at 17.00 |

Jean Monnet actions

Chairs, Modules, Centres of Excellence, Support to Associations, Networks, Projects

20 February 2020 at 17.00

| Sport actions |
| --- |
| Collaborative partnerships | 2 April 2020 at 17.00 |
| Small collaborative partnerships | 2 April 2020 at 17.00 |
| Not-for-profit European sport events | 2 April 2020 at 17.00 |

Sport actions

Collaborative partnerships

2 April 2020 at 17.00

Small collaborative partnerships

2 April 2020 at 17.00

Not-for-profit European sport events

2 April 2020 at 17.00

Please refer to the Erasmus+ Programme Guide for detailed instructions for the submission of applications.

6.   Full details

The detailed conditions of this call for proposals, including priorities, can be found in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide at the following internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/resources/programme-guide

The Erasmus+ Programme Guide constitutes an integral part of this call for proposals and the conditions for participation and funding expressed therein apply in full to this call.

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50.

(2)  Jean Monnet activities are open to organisations from the whole world.

(3)  This amount includes the funds for the International dimension of Higher Education (EUR 395 million in total).

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/16

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 373/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | The Blackstone Group Inc. (‘Blackstone’, US), |
| --- | --- |

—

The Blackstone Group Inc. (‘Blackstone’, US),

| — | Dream Global Real Estate Investment Trust (‘Dream Global REIT’, Canada). |
| --- | --- |

—

Dream Global Real Estate Investment Trust (‘Dream Global REIT’, Canada).

Blackstone acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Dream Global REIT.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets and other means.

2.

| — | for Blackstone: a global asset manager, active in the real estate sector in Europe, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Blackstone: a global asset manager, active in the real estate sector in Europe,

| — | for Dream Global REIT: an open-ended real estate investment trust operating in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Dream Global REIT: an open-ended real estate investment trust operating in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium.

3.

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

4.

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

M.9576 — Blackstone/Dream Global REIT

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

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

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

1

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

2

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/18

---

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

(2019/C 373/08)

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

COMMUNICATING THE APPROVAL OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT

‘Matera’

Reference number: PDO-IT-A0533-AM03

Date of communication:
  31.7.2019

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Characteristics of wine for consumption

Description and reasons

Description: For the Matera ‘Primitivo’ category, the upper limit of the sugar content has been raised with regard to its taste: instead of ‘dry’, it now reads ‘from dry to medium-dry with a maximum residual sugar content of 14 g/l’.

Reasons: Being able to slightly raise the upper limit of the sugar content enables producing this category of wine to be better managed because its technical-qualitative characteristics can be more fully expressed. The grape variety used produces fruit early in the season, i.e. it crops early as it has a faster growth cycle and an advanced physiological state, such that climate change and rising temperatures will provide ideal conditions conducive to grapes with a higher sugar content, which will in turn be able to produce wine with a higher sugar content. The amendment request offers operators covered by the designation of origin more potential in terms of products that can meet consumer demand and access to different sales outlets.

Description: For the Matera ‘Passito Bianco’ category of wine, the range of the sugar content has been extended with regard to its taste: instead of ‘dry’, it now reads ‘from dry to sweet’.

Reasons: The amendment is actually intended to correct an error in the description of this wine category which, on account of its intrinsic characteristics, can also be produced with sugar contents that range to sweet, as has traditionally been the case in the area.

This amendment concerns point 1.4 of the Single Document and Article 6 of the specification.

2.   Link with the geographical area

Description and reasons

Description: The link with the geographical area has been reworded to include a reference to the wine product categories Wine (1) and Sparkling Wine (4).

Reasons: the aspects that prove the link have been sufficiently demonstrated for each product category. The reworded version, which summarises the content of Article 8 of the specification, does not entail any change to the link but is intended solely to demonstrate it further by including more aspects.

The amendment concerns point 1.8 of the Single Document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Matera

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO — Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

1. Wine

4. Sparkling wine

4.   Description of the wine(s):

‘Matera’Rosso

colour: ruby red;

aroma: complex, fruity;

taste: harmonious, characteristic.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 12 % vol.;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 23 g/l.

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) | |
| 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)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

‘Matera’Primitivo

colour: ruby red tending to purple and garnet with age;

aroma: intense, long-lasting, distinctive;

taste: full-bodied, harmonious tending to velvety, from dry to medium-dry with a maximum sugar content of 14 g/l;

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 13 % vol.;

minimum total acidity: 4,5 g/l

Minimum sugar-free extract: 23 g/l.

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) | 13 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

13

Minimum total acidity

4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Matera ‘Primitivo Passito’

colour: red of varying intensity tending to garnet;

aroma: distinctive and intense;

taste: sweet, harmonious and velvety;

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 14,5 % vol.; effectively at least 13 % vol.;

minimum total acidity: 4 g/l

Minimum sugar-free extract: 25 g/l

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) | 13 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

13

Minimum total acidity

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

‘Matera’Rosato

colour: cherry pink;

aroma: intense, long-lasting, distinctive;

taste: dry, full, harmonious.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 12 % vol.;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 19 g/l.

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 | 5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| 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

5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

‘Matera’Moro and Moro Riserva

colour: intense ruby red; tending to garnet in the case of the ‘Riserva’ version

aroma: intense, long-lasting;

taste: dry, full-bodied, harmonious tending to velvety;

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 12 % vol.; 13 % vol. in the case of the ‘Riserva’ version;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 23 g/l.

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) | |
| 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)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Matera ‘Greco’

colour: straw yellow;

aroma: distinctive, intense, long-lasting;

taste: typical, distinctive.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 11 % vol.;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 19 g/l.

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 | 5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| 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

5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Matera ‘Bianco’

colour: straw yellow;

aroma: intense, fruity;

taste: typical, dry, flavourful;

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 11 % vol.;

minimum total acidity: 5 g/l

Minimum sugar-free extract: 19 g/l.

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 | 5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| 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

5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Matera ‘Bianco Passito’

colour: from straw yellow to amber depending on ageing;

aroma: intense, fruity;

taste: distinctive, from dry to sweet, flavourful;

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 13 % vol.; effectively at least 12 % vol.;

minimum total acidity: 4 g/l

Minimum sugar-free extract: 28 g/l.

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) | 12 |
| Minimum total acidity | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

12

Minimum total acidity

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Matera ‘Spumante’

foam: fine, long-lasting;

colour: straw yellow;

aroma: fruity, distinctive, pleasant;

taste: typical, distinctive.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 12,5 % vol.;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 18 g/l.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in the applicable legislation

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum total acidity | 5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| 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

5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Matera ‘Spumante Rosé’

foam: fine, long-lasting;

colour: cherry pink;

aroma: fruity, distinctive, pleasant;

taste: distinctive.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 12 % vol.;

Minimum sugar-free extract: 18 g/l.

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 | 5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre) | |
| 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

5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

5.   Winemaking practices:

a.   Essential oenological practices

None

b.   Maximum yields

Matera ‘Rosso’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Primitivo’ and ‘Primitivo Passito’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Rosato’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Moro’ and ‘Moro Riserva’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Greco’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Bianco’ and ‘Bianco Passito’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Spumante’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Matera ‘Spumante Rosé’

10 000 kg of grapes per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The production area for the ‘Matera’ registered designation of origin is the entire administrative territory of the province of Matera.

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

Sangiovese R.

Greco bianco W. - Greco

Malvasia bianca di Basilicata W. - Malvasia

Merlot R.

Primitivo R.

Cabernet sauvignon R. - Cabernet

8.   Description of the link(s)

Characteristics of the geographical area

The area where Matera PDO wine is produced contains distinct kinds of relief that result in three different environments:

| — | the Coastal Plain environment, which consists of more recent geological surfaces with plains and/or rolling terrain and a highly varied lithological substrate; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Coastal Plain environment, which consists of more recent geological surfaces with plains and/or rolling terrain and a highly varied lithological substrate;

| — | the environment of the coastal terraces above the coastal plain where various different coastal terraces start, which are linked to hilly terrain with characteristically deep, well-developed and well to moderately drained soils in a deep red range of colours (resulting from the high iron content and the breakdown of the pebbles); |
| --- | --- |

—

the environment of the coastal terraces above the coastal plain where various different coastal terraces start, which are linked to hilly terrain with characteristically deep, well-developed and well to moderately drained soils in a deep red range of colours (resulting from the high iron content and the breakdown of the pebbles);

| — | the Fossa Bradanica environment, which accounts for most of the hilly Matera region, spanning north (Irsina), south (Pistici), east (Matera, with the exception of the area of the town and the south-east) and west (Stigliano) and is characterised by varied terrain ranging from rolling to rough with a sandy-conglomerate lithological substrate: the soils consist of coarse sediment or sand, with textures varying from moderately coarse at the surface to sandy below. They are markedly calcareous and highly permeable.
  The high quality of this wine-growing culture is linked to the choice of bright, well-ventilated areas and the naturally fertile soils which are particularly suitable for vine-growing. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Fossa Bradanica environment, which accounts for most of the hilly Matera region, spanning north (Irsina), south (Pistici), east (Matera, with the exception of the area of the town and the south-east) and west (Stigliano) and is characterised by varied terrain ranging from rolling to rough with a sandy-conglomerate lithological substrate: the soils consist of coarse sediment or sand, with textures varying from moderately coarse at the surface to sandy below. They are markedly calcareous and highly permeable.

The high quality of this wine-growing culture is linked to the choice of bright, well-ventilated areas and the naturally fertile soils which are particularly suitable for vine-growing.

‘Wine’ category (1):

The wines covered by the Matera DOC are made using both native and international grape varieties with good acidity and flavour due to the range in temperature and the sandy soils, particularly in the case of wine wines, which are fresh, pale in colour and with varying degrees of alcohol content.

Soils with a higher clay content lead to wines with greater intensity of colour, whereas calcareous soils produce more sophisticated aromas.

These characteristics are heightened in raisin wines (‘Wine’ category) because of the accumulation of sugars and the concentration of extracts due to the raisining of the grapes. This is accentuated by the climate and the aspect at which the vines are grown, mostly south-southeast for optimal ripening. This in turn encourages the production of healthy grapes better suited for raisining and enables the characteristics of the grape varieties to be fully expressed. The various types of wines present mostly fruity aromas (berries and stone fruit) but also floral notes typical of the grape varieties from which they are made. All of the wines show signs of good acidity and structure, with well-balanced taste. This is particularly true of the types based on grapes of the Primitivo or Cabernet Sauvignon varieties, which are well-suited to ageing on account of their longevity.

‘Sparkling wine’ category (4):

The native grape varieties Malvasia bianca di Basilicata and Primitivo are used to produce the sparkling wines covered by the ‘Matera’ DOC.

The Matera hills area is the ideal habitat for both Malvasia and Primitivo. In fact, the two grape varieties complement one another. Malvasia is grown at a higher altitude where the climate is slightly cooler and the soils are mostly white and derived from marl, clayey marl and fossil limestone. The areas at a lower altitude have characteristically brown soils suited to the Primitivo variety, leading to sparkling wines with excellent structure and alcohol content. The production of sparkling wines is a form of specialised production in this area and makes a significant contribution to the local wine-growing economy. The first sparkling wines were produced in the early 1900s and it was in the 1950s and 1960s that many vineyards (some of which are still in operation today) decided to specialise in this sector. In fact, it was traditional for the wine producers of Matera province to sell large quantities of sparkling wines for weddings, patron saint festivities and religious holidays, including outside the region.

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

None

Link to the product specification

https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/14101

---

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

---

Corrigenda

| 5.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/26

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision 2018/C 100/09 of 14 March 2018 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chianti Classico (PDO))

(Official Journal of the European Union C 100 of 16 March 2018)

(2019/C 373/09)

On page 10, in the Annex, section 4 ‘Description of the wine(s)’, Chianti Classico Gran Selezione, in the table ‘General analytical characteristics’:

for:

| ‘Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) | 130’ |
| --- | --- |

‘Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

130’

read:

| ‘Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)’ | |
| --- | --- |

‘Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)’

---