# Official Journal L 269/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 269 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6223 October 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 269

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6223 October 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1751 of 21 October 2019 entering the name Havarti (PGI) in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1752 of 25 February 2019 establishing questionnaires, as well as the format and frequency of reports to be prepared by the Member States in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (notified under document C(2019) 1423)

   (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1751 of 21 October 2019 entering the name Havarti (PGI) in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications

1

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1752 of 25 February 2019 establishing questionnaires, as well as the format and frequency of reports to be prepared by the Member States in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (notified under document C(2019) 1423)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2019) 1423)

1

5

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1790 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (Revised 1958 Agreement) ( OJ L 274, 11.10.2016 ) | 12 |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation ( OJ L 009, 11.1.2019 ) | 13 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1790 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (Revised 1958 Agreement) ( OJ L 274, 11.10.2016 )

( OJ L 274, 11.10.2016 )

12

*

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation ( OJ L 009, 11.1.2019 )

( OJ L 009, 11.1.2019 )

13

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

II Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

| 23.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/1751

of 21 October 2019

entering the name ‘Havarti’ (PGI) in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 15(1) and Article 52(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application sent by Denmark to the Commission on 5 October 2010 to register the name ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the application sent by Denmark to the Commission on 5 October 2010 to register the name ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | Germany, Spain, the US Dairy Export Council together with the National Milk Producers Federation and the International Dairy Foods Association, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) and Dairy Australia Limited, supported by the Australian Government opposed to the registration in accordance with Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. These oppositions were deemed admissible. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Germany, Spain, the US Dairy Export Council together with the National Milk Producers Federation and the International Dairy Foods Association, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) and Dairy Australia Limited, supported by the Australian Government opposed to the registration in accordance with Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. These oppositions were deemed admissible.

| (3) | The Commission received also two notices of opposition from ‘Camara Nacional de Productores de Leche’ of Costa Rica and from ‘Asociación de Desarollo Lácteo’ (ASODEL) of Guatemala. However, no reasoned statements of opposition were submitted in accordance with Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Commission received also two notices of opposition from ‘Camara Nacional de Productores de Leche’ of Costa Rica and from ‘Asociación de Desarollo Lácteo’ (ASODEL) of Guatemala. However, no reasoned statements of opposition were submitted in accordance with Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

| (4) | The Commission invited the interested parties in the admissible oppositions to engage in appropriate consultations. Upon request of Denmark, in accordance with Article 51(3) last subparagraph of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, by letters of 5 August 2014 and 22 September 2014 the Commission extended the deadline for each of the ongoing consultations for additional three months. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Commission invited the interested parties in the admissible oppositions to engage in appropriate consultations. Upon request of Denmark, in accordance with Article 51(3) last subparagraph of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, by letters of 5 August 2014 and 22 September 2014 the Commission extended the deadline for each of the ongoing consultations for additional three months.

| (5) | Given that no agreement was reached within the designated time frame, the Commission should adopt an implementing act deciding on the registration in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Given that no agreement was reached within the designated time frame, the Commission should adopt an implementing act deciding on the registration in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

| (6) | The opponents claimed that ‘Havarti’ does not possess a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics that are attributable to the geographical origin. They consider that the registration of the name would be liable to mislead the consumers as to the true identity of the product in the light of the reputation and renown of an existing trademark. In their opinion, that registration would also jeopardise the existence of identical name, trademarks and products that have been legally on the market for at least 5 years. In addition, they alleged that the name at stake is presumed to have become generic for the following reasons: ‘Havarti’ has been subject to a Codex Alimentarius Standard since 1966, it is listed in Annex B of the Stresa Convention of 1951 and it has its own tariff line. Production and consumption of ‘Havarti’ exists in several EU and non-EU countries, certain of which have a specific legal standard for it. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The opponents claimed that ‘Havarti’ does not possess a specific quality, reputation or other characteristics that are attributable to the geographical origin. They consider that the registration of the name would be liable to mislead the consumers as to the true identity of the product in the light of the reputation and renown of an existing trademark. In their opinion, that registration would also jeopardise the existence of identical name, trademarks and products that have been legally on the market for at least 5 years. In addition, they alleged that the name at stake is presumed to have become generic for the following reasons: ‘Havarti’ has been subject to a Codex Alimentarius Standard since 1966, it is listed in Annex B of the Stresa Convention of 1951 and it has its own tariff line. Production and consumption of ‘Havarti’ exists in several EU and non-EU countries, certain of which have a specific legal standard for it.

| (7) | The Commission has assessed the arguments expressed in the reasoned statements of opposition in the light of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, taking into account the results of the appropriate consultations carried out between the applicant and the opponents and it has concluded that the name ‘Havarti’ should be registered. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Commission has assessed the arguments expressed in the reasoned statements of opposition in the light of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, taking into account the results of the appropriate consultations carried out between the applicant and the opponents and it has concluded that the name ‘Havarti’ should be registered.

| (8) | Concerning the alleged failure of the name ‘Havarti’ to comply with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, it should be noted that the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication is applied for on the basis of its reputation that is attributable to its geographical origin, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Concerning the alleged failure of the name ‘Havarti’ to comply with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, it should be noted that the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication is applied for on the basis of its reputation that is attributable to its geographical origin, within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

| (9) | Denmark has submitted a number of specialised publications and references that demonstrate that a reputational link exists between Denmark and ‘Havarti’. This cheese was granted with numerous distinctions, prizes, awards received in various national or international fora. The reputation of this product is also built on its specific method of production and historical ‘savoir faire’. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Denmark has submitted a number of specialised publications and references that demonstrate that a reputational link exists between Denmark and ‘Havarti’. This cheese was granted with numerous distinctions, prizes, awards received in various national or international fora. The reputation of this product is also built on its specific method of production and historical ‘savoir faire’.

| (10) | In the opposition procedure the Danish authorities have also specified that reputation of ‘Havarti’ has been achieved through legislative initiatives and quality work for more than 100 years. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In the opposition procedure the Danish authorities have also specified that reputation of ‘Havarti’ has been achieved through legislative initiatives and quality work for more than 100 years.

| (11) | As regards the EU territory, ‘Havarti’ is produced essentially in Denmark. At the date of application Spain, Germany, Poland, Finland and Estonia were also producing limited quantities. The production of ‘Havarti’ in these Member States is not per se liable to put in question the link of ‘Havarti’ to Denmark. Quantities are very limited if compared with the overall production in Denmark. In particular, production of cheese labelled ‘Havarti’ in Spain started only in 2010 and became more substantial only after Denmark had lodged its application for registration of the name ‘Havarti’ as PGI with the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

As regards the EU territory, ‘Havarti’ is produced essentially in Denmark. At the date of application Spain, Germany, Poland, Finland and Estonia were also producing limited quantities. The production of ‘Havarti’ in these Member States is not per se liable to put in question the link of ‘Havarti’ to Denmark. Quantities are very limited if compared with the overall production in Denmark. In particular, production of cheese labelled ‘Havarti’ in Spain started only in 2010 and became more substantial only after Denmark had lodged its application for registration of the name ‘Havarti’ as PGI with the Commission.

| (12) | Denmark provided evidence that the overwhelming majority of the Danish consumers does recognise persistent link of ‘Havarti’ with Denmark. The results of a survey conclude that the vast majority of Danish consumers are familiar with ‘Havarti’ and associate it with Denmark. Outside Denmark, knowledge of ‘Havarti’ is extremely limited. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Denmark provided evidence that the overwhelming majority of the Danish consumers does recognise persistent link of ‘Havarti’ with Denmark. The results of a survey conclude that the vast majority of Danish consumers are familiar with ‘Havarti’ and associate it with Denmark. Outside Denmark, knowledge of ‘Havarti’ is extremely limited.

| (13) | Spain also transmitted a study showing the results of a survey carried out in Spain on consumers’ awareness of ‘Havarti’ and its origin. This study is not conclusive. The percentages of unawareness of the product itself and of unawareness of its Danish origin are high. Consumers have indicated several different countries as being at the origin of ‘Havarti’. Such unawareness of the product and of its Danish origin may not be considered as positive awareness of any generic character of the name. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Spain also transmitted a study showing the results of a survey carried out in Spain on consumers’ awareness of ‘Havarti’ and its origin. This study is not conclusive. The percentages of unawareness of the product itself and of unawareness of its Danish origin are high. Consumers have indicated several different countries as being at the origin of ‘Havarti’. Such unawareness of the product and of its Danish origin may not be considered as positive awareness of any generic character of the name.

| (14) | The opponents claimed also that the name should not be registered since it is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product in the light of the reputation and renown of an existing trade mark. However, the reputation or renown of any relevant trade mark was not demonstrated. The way in which the consumer would be misled was not explained either. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The opponents claimed also that the name should not be registered since it is liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product in the light of the reputation and renown of an existing trade mark. However, the reputation or renown of any relevant trade mark was not demonstrated. The way in which the consumer would be misled was not explained either.

| (15) | Furthermore, the third-country opponents considered that the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication would jeopardise the existence of the identical name ‘Havarti’, of trade marks and of products that have been legally produced and marketed for more than 5 years, this being one of the grounds for opposition listed in Article 10, paragraph 1, point (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Furthermore, the third-country opponents considered that the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication would jeopardise the existence of the identical name ‘Havarti’, of trade marks and of products that have been legally produced and marketed for more than 5 years, this being one of the grounds for opposition listed in Article 10, paragraph 1, point (c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

| (16) | It appears that the third country opponents in this opposition procedure have not placed a cheese named ‘Havarti’ on the EU market. Therefore, the existence of a product bearing the name ‘Havarti’ and produced in these third countries is not affected by the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

It appears that the third country opponents in this opposition procedure have not placed a cheese named ‘Havarti’ on the EU market. Therefore, the existence of a product bearing the name ‘Havarti’ and produced in these third countries is not affected by the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication in the EU.

| (17) | Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not apply to the territory of third countries. Therefore, the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 is not liable to jeopardise the use of the name ‘Havarti’ on the market of third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 does not apply to the territory of third countries. Therefore, the registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 is not liable to jeopardise the use of the name ‘Havarti’ on the market of third countries.

| (18) | As regards trade marks already registered, applied for or established by use, in good faith, within the territory of the EU, prior to the date of the Denmark’s application to register the name ‘Havarti’, in line with Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 they are not affected by the registration of a PGI. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

As regards trade marks already registered, applied for or established by use, in good faith, within the territory of the EU, prior to the date of the Denmark’s application to register the name ‘Havarti’, in line with Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 they are not affected by the registration of a PGI.

| (19) | Spain and Germany have claimed that they have been producing a cheese named ‘Havarti’. The registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 would therefore jeopardise the existence of the name ‘Havarti’ referred to the product elaborated in Spain and Germany, which is identical to the name applied for registration on 5 October 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Spain and Germany have claimed that they have been producing a cheese named ‘Havarti’. The registration of ‘Havarti’ as a protected geographical indication under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 would therefore jeopardise the existence of the name ‘Havarti’ referred to the product elaborated in Spain and Germany, which is identical to the name applied for registration on 5 October 2010.

| (20) | In the light of the information included in the German and Spanish opposition and submitted to the Commission, it appears that the production of a cheese bearing the name ‘Havarti’ started in Spain in 2010 and it reached 5 100 tonnes in 2014. In Germany, only data concerning the production in 2012 are available (2 571 tonnes) but it is stated that Germany has produced a cheese bearing the name ‘Havarti’ for more than 20 years. In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, transitional periods should be granted to the operators in Spain and in Germany who started marketing a cheese product bearing the name ‘Havarti’ before the date of submission of the Danish application to the Commission in order to allow them to continue to use the name jeopardised by the registration while adjusting their production on the market. A period of 5 years should be considered appropriate for German and Spanish producers. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

In the light of the information included in the German and Spanish opposition and submitted to the Commission, it appears that the production of a cheese bearing the name ‘Havarti’ started in Spain in 2010 and it reached 5 100 tonnes in 2014. In Germany, only data concerning the production in 2012 are available (2 571 tonnes) but it is stated that Germany has produced a cheese bearing the name ‘Havarti’ for more than 20 years. In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, transitional periods should be granted to the operators in Spain and in Germany who started marketing a cheese product bearing the name ‘Havarti’ before the date of submission of the Danish application to the Commission in order to allow them to continue to use the name jeopardised by the registration while adjusting their production on the market. A period of 5 years should be considered appropriate for German and Spanish producers.

| (21) | Lastly, the opponents submitted several pieces of evidence that allegedly show that the name in question is generic. However, having a specific Codex Alimentarius Standard as well as an inclusion of ‘Havarti’ in Annex B to the Stresa Convention does not imply that the said name has become generic. Tariff codes relate to customs issues and are therefore not relevant to intellectual property rights. Generic status in the EU can only be assessed with regard to the perception of consumers in the EU territory. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Lastly, the opponents submitted several pieces of evidence that allegedly show that the name in question is generic. However, having a specific Codex Alimentarius Standard as well as an inclusion of ‘Havarti’ in Annex B to the Stresa Convention does not imply that the said name has become generic. Tariff codes relate to customs issues and are therefore not relevant to intellectual property rights. Generic status in the EU can only be assessed with regard to the perception of consumers in the EU territory.

| (22) | As regards the production data and perception of ‘Havarti’ within the EU, which has been assessed with reference to the claim concerning the alleged lack of link between the product and the geographical area, it should be concluded that ‘Havarti’ has not become generic within the EU. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

As regards the production data and perception of ‘Havarti’ within the EU, which has been assessed with reference to the claim concerning the alleged lack of link between the product and the geographical area, it should be concluded that ‘Havarti’ has not become generic within the EU.

| (23) | Data submitted concerning the production and marketing of ‘Havarti’ outside the EU are not relevant, considering the principle of territoriality inherent to intellectual property rights in general and Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 in particular, according to which the possible generic nature of a name is to be assessed in relation to the territory of the Union. The perception of this term outside the EU and the possible existence of related regulatory production standards in third countries are not deemed relevant to the present decision irrespective of whether those standards lay down rights to use labelling terms. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Data submitted concerning the production and marketing of ‘Havarti’ outside the EU are not relevant, considering the principle of territoriality inherent to intellectual property rights in general and Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 in particular, according to which the possible generic nature of a name is to be assessed in relation to the territory of the Union. The perception of this term outside the EU and the possible existence of related regulatory production standards in third countries are not deemed relevant to the present decision irrespective of whether those standards lay down rights to use labelling terms.

| (24) | The proposal of opponents to alternatively register the name ‘Danish Havarti’ cannot be retained since it would not fulfil the conditions provided for by point (a) of paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The proposal of opponents to alternatively register the name ‘Danish Havarti’ cannot be retained since it would not fulfil the conditions provided for by point (a) of paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.

| (25) | In order to allow the exhaustion of stocks already produced or on the market the application of this Regulation should be deferred. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

In order to allow the exhaustion of stocks already produced or on the market the application of this Regulation should be deferred.

| (26) | In the light of the above, the name ‘Havarti’ should be entered in the ‘register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

In the light of the above, the name ‘Havarti’ should be entered in the ‘register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’.

| (27) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee, |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Agricultural Product Quality Policy Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Havarti’ (PGI) is registered.

The name in the first paragraph identifies a product from Class 1.3. Cheeses set out in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

For a transitional period of 5 years from the date of application of this Regulation, the name ‘Havarti’ may continue to be used by operators established in Germany and Spain who have started marketing a cheese product bearing the name ‘Havarti’ before 5 October 2010.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 12 May 2020.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 October 2019.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ C 20, 23.1.2014, p. 9.

2

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

3

---

DECISIONS

| 23.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/5

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2019/1752

of 25 February 2019

establishing questionnaires, as well as the format and frequency of reports to be prepared by the Member States in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(notified under document C(2019) 1423)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (1), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 18(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 requires Member States to provide to the Commission and make publicly available on the internet, by 1 January 2020 and at appropriate intervals thereafter, a report with information concerning the implementation of that Regulation, as well as certain other types of information listed in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 requires Member States to provide to the Commission and make publicly available on the internet, by 1 January 2020 and at appropriate intervals thereafter, a report with information concerning the implementation of that Regulation, as well as certain other types of information listed in that provision.

| (2) | The questionnaires to be used by the Member States for reporting in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 should be drawn up in a way that helps the Commission report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation and review of that Regulation pursuant to its Article 19(2). They should also allow the Union to fulfil its reporting obligation under Article 21 of the Minamata Convention on Mercury adopted in Kumamoto, Japan, on 10 October 2013 (‘the Convention’). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The questionnaires to be used by the Member States for reporting in accordance with Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 should be drawn up in a way that helps the Commission report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation and review of that Regulation pursuant to its Article 19(2). They should also allow the Union to fulfil its reporting obligation under Article 21 of the Minamata Convention on Mercury adopted in Kumamoto, Japan, on 10 October 2013 (‘the Convention’).

| (3) | Even though reporting questionnaires under Regulation (EU) 2017/852 must, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 18(2) of that Regulation, not duplicate reporting obligations of the Parties to the Convention as laid down in Decision MC-1/8 adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention at its first meeting (2), it is appropriate that they address certain reporting items covered by Decision MC-1/8 in order to specify in more detail the information required so as to enable an effective assessment of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/852. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Even though reporting questionnaires under Regulation (EU) 2017/852 must, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 18(2) of that Regulation, not duplicate reporting obligations of the Parties to the Convention as laid down in Decision MC-1/8 adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention at its first meeting (2), it is appropriate that they address certain reporting items covered by Decision MC-1/8 in order to specify in more detail the information required so as to enable an effective assessment of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/852.

| (4) | Information on import of mercury and of mixtures of mercury with a mercury concentration of at least 95 % by weight should be reported annually given the high potential impact upon the environment and public health of mismanagement of mercury. However, in order to alleviate administrative burden, the obligation to provide such information should be waived where a Member State provides the Commission with a copy of the form(s) used to grant or deny written consent on import pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Information on import of mercury and of mixtures of mercury with a mercury concentration of at least 95 % by weight should be reported annually given the high potential impact upon the environment and public health of mismanagement of mercury. However, in order to alleviate administrative burden, the obligation to provide such information should be waived where a Member State provides the Commission with a copy of the form(s) used to grant or deny written consent on import pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852.

| (5) | Where information to be reported is related to geographically located entities, such as industrial installations and sites, the information should be reported in accordance with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Where information to be reported is related to geographically located entities, such as industrial installations and sites, the information should be reported in accordance with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

| (6) | The questionnaires should address key provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/852, including on the phasing-out of manufacturing processes involving the use of mercury or mercury compounds, artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing activities and dental amalgam and should also require information on significant difficulties in implementing other provisions of that Regulation. Furthermore, they should require the provision of information on key performance indicators, including data on trade of mercury and on amounts of mercury stored or disposed. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The questionnaires should address key provisions of Regulation (EU) 2017/852, including on the phasing-out of manufacturing processes involving the use of mercury or mercury compounds, artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing activities and dental amalgam and should also require information on significant difficulties in implementing other provisions of that Regulation. Furthermore, they should require the provision of information on key performance indicators, including data on trade of mercury and on amounts of mercury stored or disposed.

| (7) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee established by Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852, |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the committee established by Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   For the purpose of reporting to the Commission on the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 in accordance with Article 18(1) of that Regulation, Member States shall use the questionnaire set out in Annex I to this Decision.

2.   The information referred to in point 1.1 of Annex I shall be made available to the Commission by 31 January of each year (N) covering the reporting year N-1.

The information referred to in point 1.2 of Annex I shall be made available to the Commission by 30 September of each year (N) covering the reporting year N-1.

3.   The information referred to in point 1.1 of Annex I shall not be required where a Member State provides the Commission with a copy of the form(s) used to grant or deny written consent on import pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 during the reporting year N-1. Member States shall make such copies available at the latest by 31 January of each year (N) covering the reporting year N-1, or they may choose to make them available at any time during the reporting period N-1.

Article 2

1.   For the purpose of reporting to the Commission as required by Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852, with the exception of reporting on the implementation of Article 4 of that Regulation, Member States shall use the questionnaire set out in Annex II to this Decision.

2.   The information set out in Annex II shall be made available to the Commission in accordance with the following timetable:

| (a) | the first report covering the reporting years 2017 and 2018 shall be made available by 1 January 2020 at the latest; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the first report covering the reporting years 2017 and 2018 shall be made available by 1 January 2020 at the latest;

| (b) | the second report covering the reporting period 2019-2020 shall be made available by 30 September 2021 at the latest; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the second report covering the reporting period 2019-2020 shall be made available by 30 September 2021 at the latest;

| (c) | the third report covering the reporting period 2021-2022 shall be made available by 30 September 2023 at the latest; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the third report covering the reporting period 2021-2022 shall be made available by 30 September 2023 at the latest;

| (d) | the fourth report covering the reporting period 2023-2024 shall be made available by 30 September 2025 at the latest; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the fourth report covering the reporting period 2023-2024 shall be made available by 30 September 2025 at the latest;

| (e) | the fifth report covering the reporting period 2025-2028 shall be made available by 30 September 2029 at the latest. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the fifth report covering the reporting period 2025-2028 shall be made available by 30 September 2029 at the latest.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 February 2019.

For the Commission

Karmenu VELLA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 137, 24.5.2017, p. 1.

1

(2)  Decision MC-1/8 Timing and format of reporting by the parties, Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention on Mercury on the work of its first meeting (http://www.mercuryconvention.org).

2

(3)  Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1).

3

---

ANNEX I

Questionnaire

Information on import restrictions to be made available to the Commission by the Member States for the purpose of reporting on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/852

Article 4

Import restrictions

1.   Has the Member State granted written consent to import of mercury or mixtures of mercury for a use allowed in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852?

If yes, provide the following information:

| 1.1. | Mercury and mixtures of mercury as non-waste (1)







  (i) | Amount of mercury or mixtures of mercury imported, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.

Mercury and mixtures of mercury as non-waste (1)

(i)

Amount of mercury or mixtures of mercury imported,

| (ii) | Intended use(s) of imported mercury or mixtures of mercury (t/y per intended use). |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Intended use(s) of imported mercury or mixtures of mercury (t/y per intended use).

| 1.2. | Mercury as waste






  (i) | Amount of mercury waste imported; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2.

Mercury as waste

(i)

Amount of mercury waste imported;

| (ii) | Intended disposal or recovery operation(s) (t/y per intended operation) (2).






  — | In case of import intended for an interim disposal or recovery operation, provide information on the intended subsequent non-interim disposal or recovery operation(s) (3). |
| --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

Intended disposal or recovery operation(s) (t/y per intended operation) (2).

—

In case of import intended for an interim disposal or recovery operation, provide information on the intended subsequent non-interim disposal or recovery operation(s) (3).

| — | In case of import intended for recovery operation(s) other than interim recovery operations, provide information on the intended use of the material resulting from the non-interim recovery operation(s). |
| --- | --- |

—

In case of import intended for recovery operation(s) other than interim recovery operations, provide information on the intended use of the material resulting from the non-interim recovery operation(s).

---

(1)  Information on question 1.1 shall not be required where the Member State provides the Commission with a copy of the form(s) used to grant or deny written consent on import pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 during the reporting year N-1.

1

(2)  Information on the type(s) of disposal or recovery operation(s) is to be reported by means of the codes established in Sections A and B, respectively, of Annex IV to the Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (OJ L 39, 16.2.1993, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  ‘Interim disposal’ and ‘interim recovery’ operations are as defined in Article 2 paragraphs 5 and 7, respectively, of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1).

3

---

ANNEX II

Questionnaire

Information other than on import restrictions to be made available to the Commission by the Member States for the purpose of reporting on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2017/852

Note 1: Where the reply to questions 1.2 and/or 2.1 is ‘yes’, information on related sub-questions 1.2(i) to (v) and/or 2.1(i) shall not be required where all the information is included in a report provided by the Member State in accordance with its reporting obligation established under Article 21 of the Minamata Convention and where the relevant report has been made available to the Commission in accordance with Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852.

Note 2: Responses to questions marked with an asterisk (*) are optional.

1.   Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852: Industrial activities

| 1.1. | Have the following manufacturing processes involving the use of mercury and mercury compounds been phased out by the dates referred to in Part I of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2017/852? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

| 1.1.1. | Production of vinyl chloride monomer (to be phased out by 1 January 2022 at the latest)
  If no, provide the following information:






  (i) | Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phased-out date; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.1.

If no, provide the following information:

(i)

Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phased-out date;

| (ii) | Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable.

| 1.1.2. | Production of chlor-alkali (to be phased out by 11 December 2017 at the latest)
  If no, provide the following information:






  (i) | Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phase-out date; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.2.

If no, provide the following information:

(i)

Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phase-out date;

| (ii) | Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable.

| 1.1.3. | Production of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate (to be phased out by 1 January 2028 at the latest)
  If no, provide the following information:






  (i) | Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phase-out date; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.3.

If no, provide the following information:

(i)

Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phase-out date;

| (ii) | Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable.

| 1.1.4. | Production of polyurethane (to be phased out by 1 January 2018 at the latest)
  If no, provide the following information:






  (i) | Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phase-out date; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.1.4.

If no, provide the following information:

(i)

Reasons(s) for the perpetuation of this manufacturing process after the phase-out date;

| (ii) | Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Measure(s) taken or planned to phase-out this manufacturing process and associated timetable.

| 1.2. | Are there any installations in the territory of the Member State producing sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate making use of a manufacturing process involving the use of mercury and mercury compounds as referred to in Part II of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2017/852?
  If yes, provide for each installation concerned the following information:






  (i) | Unique identifier that follows the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.2.

If yes, provide for each installation concerned the following information:

(i)

Unique identifier that follows the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC;

| (ii) | Annual operational capacity of each installation (t/year) for the years 2017 and following; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Annual operational capacity of each installation (t/year) for the years 2017 and following;

| (iii) | Whether mercury from primary mercury mining has been or is still used in each of the installations; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Whether mercury from primary mercury mining has been or is still used in each of the installations;

| (iv) | For the year 2010, the level of direct and indirect release from each installation of mercury and of mercury compounds into air, water and land in terms of per unit production (to be expressed as kg of mercury and mercury compounds per kt of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate produced); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

For the year 2010, the level of direct and indirect release from each installation of mercury and of mercury compounds into air, water and land in terms of per unit production (to be expressed as kg of mercury and mercury compounds per kt of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate produced);

| (v) | For the year 2020 and following, the level of direct and indirect release from each installation of mercury and of mercury compounds into air, water and land in terms of per unit production (to be expressed as kg of mercury and mercury compounds per kt of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate produced). |
| --- | --- |

(v)

For the year 2020 and following, the level of direct and indirect release from each installation of mercury and of mercury compounds into air, water and land in terms of per unit production (to be expressed as kg of mercury and mercury compounds per kt of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate produced).

2.   Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/852: Artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing

| 2.1. | Has the Member State found evidence of more than isolated cases of use of mercury amalgamation to extract gold in its territory?
  If yes, provide the following information:






  (i) | Has the competent authority of the Member State developed and implemented a national plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing in accordance with Article 9(2) and Annex IV of Regulation (EU) 2017/852?






  — | If yes, provide an internet link to the national plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.1.

If yes, provide the following information:

(i)

Has the competent authority of the Member State developed and implemented a national plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing in accordance with Article 9(2) and Annex IV of Regulation (EU) 2017/852?

—

If yes, provide an internet link to the national plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing.

| — | If no, provide information on the reason(s) for not having developed and implemented a national plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing and on the measures taken and/or planned to establish such a plan and an associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

—

If no, provide information on the reason(s) for not having developed and implemented a national plan on artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing and on the measures taken and/or planned to establish such a plan and an associated timetable.

3.   Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2017/852: Dental amalgam

| 3.1. | Has the Member State faced important challenges in implementing Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2017/852 on dental amalgam?
  If yes, provide the following information:






  (i) | Nature and scope of the challenges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1.

If yes, provide the following information:

(i)

Nature and scope of the challenges;

| (ii) | Measure(s) taken and/or planned to address these challenges and associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Measure(s) taken and/or planned to address these challenges and associated timetable.

4.   Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2017/852: Reporting on large sources

| 4.1. | In accordance with Article 18(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852, provide the following summary of the information the economic operators have sent to the competent authorities of the Member State under Article 12(1) and (2) of that Regulation: |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.1.1. | List of installations concerned per type of large source referred to Article 11(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852, and associated identifier:






  (i) | Production of chlor-alkali:






  — | List of installations; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.1.1.

(i)

Production of chlor-alkali:

—

List of installations;

| — | Unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC.

| (ii) | Cleaning of natural gas:






  — | List of installations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

Cleaning of natural gas:

—

List of installations;

| — | Unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC.

| (iii) | Non-ferrous mining and smelting operations:






  — | List of installations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(iii)

Non-ferrous mining and smelting operations:

—

List of installations;

| — | Unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC.

| 4.1.2. | Total amount of mercury waste stored in each installation listed under question 4.1.1(i), (ii) and (iii) on 31 December of each reporting year within each reporting period, expressed in tonnes. |
| --- | --- |

4.1.2.

| 4.1.3. | Total amount of mercury waste expressed in tonnes sent annually to the following waste facilities by each installation listed under question 4.1.1, for each year covered by the reporting period:






  (i) | Total mercury waste sent to facilities undertaking the temporary storage of mercury waste; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.1.3.

(i)

Total mercury waste sent to facilities undertaking the temporary storage of mercury waste;

| (ii) | Total mercury waste sent to facilities undertaking the conversion and, if applicable, the solidification of mercury waste; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Total mercury waste sent to facilities undertaking the conversion and, if applicable, the solidification of mercury waste;

| (iii) | Total mercury waste sent to facilities undertaking the permanent storage of mercury waste. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Total mercury waste sent to facilities undertaking the permanent storage of mercury waste.

| 4.2. | * Any other relevant information the Member State wishes to make available. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

5.   Article 18(1)(d) and (e) of Regulation (EU) 2017/852: Other reporting required under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/852

| 5.1. | Provide the following information regarding mercury located in the territory of the Member State:






  (i) | A list of sites where stocks of more than 50 metric tonnes of mercury other than mercury waste are located on 31 December of each reporting year, including the unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.1.

(i)

A list of sites where stocks of more than 50 metric tonnes of mercury other than mercury waste are located on 31 December of each reporting year, including the unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC.

| (ii) | Total amount of mercury other than mercury waste stored on 31 December of each reporting year at each site identified under (i), expressed in tonnes. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Total amount of mercury other than mercury waste stored on 31 December of each reporting year at each site identified under (i), expressed in tonnes.

| 5.2. | Provide the following information regarding mercury waste located in the territory of the Member State:






  (i) | A list of sites where more than 50 metric tonnes of mercury waste is accumulated on 31 December of each reporting year, including the unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.2.

(i)

A list of sites where more than 50 metric tonnes of mercury waste is accumulated on 31 December of each reporting year, including the unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC;

| (ii) | Total amount of mercury waste accumulated on 31 December of each reporting year at each site identified under (i), expressed in tonnes. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Total amount of mercury waste accumulated on 31 December of each reporting year at each site identified under (i), expressed in tonnes.

| 5.3. | Provide the following information if made available to the Member State:






  (i) | A list of sources supplying more than 10 metric tonnes of mercury per year, including the unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.3.

(i)

A list of sources supplying more than 10 metric tonnes of mercury per year, including the unique identifiers that follow the requirements of Directive 2007/2/EC;

| (ii) | Total amount of mercury supplied on 31 December of each reporting year by each source identified under (i), expressed in tonnes. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Total amount of mercury supplied on 31 December of each reporting year by each source identified under (i), expressed in tonnes.

6.   Final questions

| 6.1. | * Has the Member State faced other important challenges in implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/852?
  If yes, provide the following information:






  (i) | Explanation of the challenges faced; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.

If yes, provide the following information:

(i)

Explanation of the challenges faced;

| (ii) | Information on measures taken or planned to address the difficulties encountered and associated timetable. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Information on measures taken or planned to address the difficulties encountered and associated timetable.

| 6.2. | * The Member State may share information on other implementation promotion initiatives undertaken or planned. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

---

(1)  Responses to and information on questions 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 are only due in the first report due after the relevant phase-out dates.

---

Corrigenda

| 23.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/12

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2016/1790 of 12 February 2016 on the conclusion of Revision 3 of the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for the reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis ofS these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement’)

(Official Journal of the European Union L 274 of 11 October 2016)

1. On the cover page and on page 2, in the title of the Decision:

for:

‘
  12 February 2016
  ’,

read:

‘
  17 June 2016
  ’.

2. On page 3, in the concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 12 February 2016.’,

read:

‘Done at Luxembourg, 17 June2016.’.

---

| 23.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/13

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation

(Official Journal of the European Union L 9 of 11 January 2019)

On page 20, in Article 40(2):

for:

‘2.By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the compulsory particulars referred to in Article 41(1) and the lot number may appear outside the field of vision referred to in that paragraph.’,

read:

‘2.By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the compulsory particulars referred to in Article 41(1), the indication of the importer and the lot number may appear outside the field of vision referred to in that paragraph.’.

On page 22, in the third subparagraph of Article 45(1):

for:

‘The first and second subparagraphs are without prejudice to Articles 47 and 56.’,

read:

‘The first and second subparagraphs are without prejudice to Articles 46 and 55.’.

On page 29, in Article 58(1):

for:

‘1.Member States may render the use of the particulars referred to in Articles 49, 50, 52, 53 and 55 of this Regulation and Article 13 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 compulsory, prohibited or limited for grapevine products bearing a protected designation of origin or geographical indication produced on their territory, by introducing conditions stricter than those laid down in this Chapter through the corresponding product specifications of those grapevine products.’,

read:

‘1.Member States may render the use of the particulars referred to in Articles 49, 50, 52, 53 and 55 of this Regulation and Article 14 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 compulsory, prohibited or limited for grapevine products bearing a protected designation of origin or geographical indication produced on their territory, by introducing conditions stricter than those laid down in this Chapter through the corresponding product specifications of those grapevine products.’.

---