# Official Journal C 68/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 68 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5826 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 68

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5826 February 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 068/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 068/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 068/02 | Notice of Open Competitions | 2 |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2015/C 068/03 | Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2014 in Case E-26/13 — The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson (Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment) | 3 |
| 2015/C 068/04 | Judgment of the Court of 7 July 2014 in Case E-5/13 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012) | 4 |
| 2015/C 068/05 | Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2014 in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between: Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes (Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 068/06 | Information Notice — Public Consultation — Geographical indications from the Republic of Moldova | 7 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2015/C 068/02

Notice of Open Competitions

2

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2015/C 068/03

Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2014 in Case E-26/13 — The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson (Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)

(Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)

3

2015/C 068/04

Judgment of the Court of 7 July 2014 in Case E-5/13 — Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)

v

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)

4

2015/C 068/05

Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2014 in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between: Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes (Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)

(Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 068/06

Information Notice — Public Consultation — Geographical indications from the Republic of Moldova

7

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 26.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2015

(2015/C 68/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1346 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4650 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73280 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4910 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0773 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6325 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,419 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1615 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4223 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8017 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4388 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4116 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7997 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5031 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5378 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 248,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,0250 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1025 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6840 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 617,03 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0908 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 49,988 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,3432 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,909 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2395 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9424 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,3083 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1346

JPY

Japanese yen

134,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4650

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73280

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4910

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0773

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6325

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,419

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1615

RON

Romanian leu

4,4223

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8017

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4388

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4116

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7997

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5031

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5378

KRW

South Korean won

1 248,89

ZAR

South African rand

13,0250

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1025

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6840

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 617,03

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0908

PHP

Philippine peso

49,988

RUB

Russian rouble

70,3432

THB

Thai baht

36,909

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2395

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9424

INR

Indian rupee

70,3083

---

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

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 26.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/2

---

Notice of Open Competitions

(2015/C 68/02)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

EPSO/AD/295-300/15

ADMINISTRATORS (AD 5/AD 7)

SPECIALISING IN LEGAL RESEARCH

| | EPSO/AD/295/15 — Lawyers with Bulgarian legal training (BG) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/295/15 — Lawyers with Bulgarian legal training (BG)

| | EPSO/AD/296/15 — Lawyers with German legal training (DE) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/296/15 — Lawyers with German legal training (DE)

| | EPSO/AD/297/15 — Lawyers with Croatian legal training (HR) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/297/15 — Lawyers with Croatian legal training (HR)

| | EPSO/AD/298/15 — Lawyers with Irish legal training (IE) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/298/15 — Lawyers with Irish legal training (IE)

| | EPSO/AD/299/15 — Lawyers with Lithuanian legal training (LT) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/299/15 — Lawyers with Lithuanian legal training (LT)

| | EPSO/AD/300/15 — Lawyers with Slovak legal training (SK) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/300/15 — Lawyers with Slovak legal training (SK)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in Official Journal C 68 A of 26 February 2015.

For more information, please go to the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 26.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 June 2014

in Case E-26/13

The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson

(Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)

(2015/C 68/03)

In Case E-26/13, The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of Article 28 of the EEA Agreement and Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 June 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

It is not compatible with Article 1 of Directive 90/365/EEC and Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 2004/38/EC that an EEA State does not give spouses who have moved to another EEA State the option of pooling their personal tax credits in connection with the assessment of income tax, whereas they would be entitled to pool their personal tax credits if they lived in the home State, in a situation where one of them receives a pension from the home State, and that pension constitutes all or nearly all of that person’s income, while the other spouse has no income.

---

| 26.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 July 2014

in Case E-5/13

Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)

(2015/C 68/04)

In Case E-5/13, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) Decisions of 25 January 2013 and 18 February 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 to deny access to documents, belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), under the new rules on access to documents enacted by ESA on 5 September 2012 in ESA Decision No 300/12/COL (‘RAD 2012’) (not published in the Official Journal), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 7 July 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Annuls ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refuses to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refuses to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL.

| 2. | Dismisses the application as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders each party and the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party and the intervener to bear its own costs.

---

| 26.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 July 2014

in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between:

Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others

and

The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes

(Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)

(2015/C 68/05)

In Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13, between Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes — REQUESTS to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Tax Appeals Board for the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises (Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter) and Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett), concerning the interpretation of the rules on freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, in particular the interpretation of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, in relation to the Norwegian controlled foreign company tax legislation (‘CFC rules’) which permits national taxation of capital placed in a low-tax country, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 July 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. – 2. | A trust such as Ptarmigan Trust falls within the scope of Article 31 EEA provided that the trust pursues a real and genuine economic activity within the EEA for an indefinite period and through a fixed establishment. Whether this is the case is for the national court to assess. All interested parties, that is to say the trust’s settlors, trustees and beneficiaries hold the rights under Articles 31 and 34 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

1. – 2.

A trust such as Ptarmigan Trust falls within the scope of Article 31 EEA provided that the trust pursues a real and genuine economic activity within the EEA for an indefinite period and through a fixed establishment. Whether this is the case is for the national court to assess. All interested parties, that is to say the trust’s settlors, trustees and beneficiaries hold the rights under Articles 31 and 34 EEA.

| 3. | Beneficiaries of capital assets set up in the form of a trust that are subject to national tax measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be able to invoke Article 40 EEA in the event that they are not found to have exercised definite influence over an independent undertaking in another EEA State or engaged in economic activity that comes within the scope of the right of establishment. It is for the national courts to make the final assessment in that regard, based on the factual circumstances of the case. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Beneficiaries of capital assets set up in the form of a trust that are subject to national tax measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be able to invoke Article 40 EEA in the event that they are not found to have exercised definite influence over an independent undertaking in another EEA State or engaged in economic activity that comes within the scope of the right of establishment. It is for the national courts to make the final assessment in that regard, based on the factual circumstances of the case.

| 4. | The difference in treatment entailed by section 10-60 of the Tax Act creates a tax disadvantage for resident taxpayers to whom the legislation on controlled foreign companies applies, which is such as to hinder their exercise of freedom of establishment, dissuading them from establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in an EEA State in which the latter is subject to low levels of taxation. It therefore constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 31 and 34 EEA. If the tax disadvantage resulting from the differential treatment for resident taxpayers under section 10-60 is such as to hinder the beneficiaries from investing funds in another EEA State, without any intention to influence the control or the management of an undertaking, and from engaging in the movement of capital of a personal nature, it constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 40 EEA and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement.
  Moreover, a rule of national law entailing that, in contrast to participants in comparable domestic entities, personal participants in a controlled foreign company in another EEA State are not afforded any opportunity to undo the economic double taxation that the Norwegian CFC rules entail constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Articles 31 and 34 EEA, or, depending upon the assessment of the national court, the free movement of capital which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 40 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The difference in treatment entailed by section 10-60 of the Tax Act creates a tax disadvantage for resident taxpayers to whom the legislation on controlled foreign companies applies, which is such as to hinder their exercise of freedom of establishment, dissuading them from establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in an EEA State in which the latter is subject to low levels of taxation. It therefore constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 31 and 34 EEA. If the tax disadvantage resulting from the differential treatment for resident taxpayers under section 10-60 is such as to hinder the beneficiaries from investing funds in another EEA State, without any intention to influence the control or the management of an undertaking, and from engaging in the movement of capital of a personal nature, it constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 40 EEA and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement.

Moreover, a rule of national law entailing that, in contrast to participants in comparable domestic entities, personal participants in a controlled foreign company in another EEA State are not afforded any opportunity to undo the economic double taxation that the Norwegian CFC rules entail constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Articles 31 and 34 EEA, or, depending upon the assessment of the national court, the free movement of capital which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 40 EEA.

| 5. | A restriction on the freedom of establishment or, where applicable, the free movement of capital resulting from national CFC legislation such as that applicable in the main proceedings may be justified on grounds of overriding public interest, in particular on considerations of preventing tax avoidance or maintaining the balanced allocation of taxing powers between EEA States. The restriction is proportionate if it relates only to wholly artificial arrangements which seek to escape the national tax payable in comparable situations. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives a controlled foreign company is actually established in the host EEA State and carries on genuine economic activities, which take effect in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

5.

A restriction on the freedom of establishment or, where applicable, the free movement of capital resulting from national CFC legislation such as that applicable in the main proceedings may be justified on grounds of overriding public interest, in particular on considerations of preventing tax avoidance or maintaining the balanced allocation of taxing powers between EEA States. The restriction is proportionate if it relates only to wholly artificial arrangements which seek to escape the national tax payable in comparable situations. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives a controlled foreign company is actually established in the host EEA State and carries on genuine economic activities, which take effect in the EEA.

| 6. | It is for the national court to determine whether the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds that are not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law. If so, the difference in tax rate constitutes a restriction under Article 31 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 40 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

6.

It is for the national court to determine whether the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds that are not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law. If so, the difference in tax rate constitutes a restriction under Article 31 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 40 EEA.

| 7. | The difference in tax rate cannot be justified if the beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The difference in tax rate cannot be justified if the beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law.

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 26.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/7

---

INFORMATION NOTICE — PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Geographical indications from the Republic of Moldova

(2015/C 68/06)

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) entered into force on 1 April 2013. It was furthermore incorporated in the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part (2).

Article 298(1) of the abovementioned Association Agreement foresees the possibility for the Parties to add new geographical indications (GIs) to be protected in Annexes XXX-C and XXX-D in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 306(3). In this context, the protection in the European Union, as geographical indications, of the Moldovan names set out below is under consideration.

The Commission invites any Member State or third country or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, resident or established in a Member State or in a third country, to submit oppositions to such protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement.

Statements of opposition must reach the Commission within 2 months of the date of this publication. Statements of opposition should be sent to the following e-mail address:

AGRI-A4-GI@ec.europa.eu

Statements of opposition shall be examined only if they are received within the time limit set out above and if they show that the protection of the name proposed would:

| (a) | conflict with the name of a plant variety or an animal breed and as a result be likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

conflict with the name of a plant variety or an animal breed and as a result be likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product;

| (b) | be wholly or partially homonymous with that of a name already protected in the Union under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (3), and Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (4) or contained in the agreements the Union has concluded with the following countries:






  — | Australia (5) |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

be wholly or partially homonymous with that of a name already protected in the Union under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (3), and Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (4) or contained in the agreements the Union has concluded with the following countries:

—

Australia (5)

| — | Chile (6) |
| --- | --- |

—

Chile (6)

| — | South Africa (7) |
| --- | --- |

—

South Africa (7)

| — | Switzerland (8) |
| --- | --- |

—

Switzerland (8)

| — | Mexico (9) |
| --- | --- |

—

Mexico (9)

| — | Korea (10) |
| --- | --- |

—

Korea (10)

| — | Central America (11) |
| --- | --- |

—

Central America (11)

| — | Colombia and Peru (12) |
| --- | --- |

—

Colombia and Peru (12)

| — | Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (13) |
| --- | --- |

—

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (13)

| — | Canada (14) |
| --- | --- |

—

Canada (14)

| — | United States (15) |
| --- | --- |

—

United States (15)

| — | Albania (16) |
| --- | --- |

—

Albania (16)

| — | Montenegro (17) |
| --- | --- |

—

Montenegro (17)

| — | Bosnia and Herzegovina (18) |
| --- | --- |

—

Bosnia and Herzegovina (18)

| — | Serbia (19) |
| --- | --- |

—

Serbia (19)

| — | Georgia (20) |
| --- | --- |

—

Georgia (20)

| (c) | in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used, be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used, be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product;

| (d) | jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a trade mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least 5 years preceding the date of the publication of this notice; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a trade mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least 5 years preceding the date of the publication of this notice;

| (e) | or if they can give details from which it can be concluded that the name for which protection is considered is generic. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

or if they can give details from which it can be concluded that the name for which protection is considered is generic.

The criteria referred to above shall be evaluated in relation to the territory of the Union, which in the case of intellectual property rights refers only to the territory or territories where the said rights are protected. The eventual protection of these names in the European Union is subject to the successful conclusion of these negotiations and subsequent legal act.

No budgetary implications.

List of GIs for wines and agricultural products and foodstuffs
   (21)

| Type of product | Name as registered in the Republic of Moldova |
| --- | --- |
| Wines | Codru |
| Wines | Ştefan vodă |
| Wines | Vadul lui Traian |
| Spirit drinks | Divin |

Type of product

Name as registered in the Republic of Moldova

Wines

Codru

Wines

Ştefan vodă

Wines

Vadul lui Traian

Spirit drinks

Divin

---

(1)  OJ L 10, 15.1.2013, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 260, 31.8.2014, p. 4.

(3)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(4)  OJ L 39, 13.2.2008, p. 16.

(5)  Council Decision 2009/49/EC of 28 November 2008 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine (OJ L 28, 30.1.2009, p. 1).

(6)  Council Decision 2002/979/EC of 18 November 2002 on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of an Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 1).

(7)  Council Decision 2002/51/EC of 21 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in wine (OJ L 28, 30.1.2002, p. 3.) and Council Decision 2002/52/EC of 21 January 2002 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of South Africa on trade in spirits (OJ L 28, 30.1.2002, p. 112).

(8)  Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 1) and in particular the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Federation on trade in agricultural products — Annex 7.

(9)  Council Decision 97/361/EC of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (OJ L 152, 11.6.1997, p. 15).

(10)  Council Decision 2011/265/EU of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (OJ L 127, 14.5.2011, p. 1).

(11)  Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other (OJ L 346, 15.12.2012, p. 3).

(12)  Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3).

(13)  Council Decision 2001/916/EC of 3 December 2001 on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the outcome of the negotiations between the parties on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine names and the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of designations for spirits and aromatised drinks (OJ L 342, 27.12.2001, p. 6).

(14)  Council Decision 2004/91/EC of 30 July 2003 on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Community and Canada on trade in wines and spirit drinks (OJ L 35, 6.2.2004, p. 1).

(15)  Council Decision 2006/232/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (OJ L 87, 24.3.2006, p. 1).

(16)  Council Decision 2006/580/EC of 12 June 2006 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part — Protocol 3 on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine, spirit drinks and aromatised wine names (OJ L 239, 1.9.2006, p. 1).

(17)  Council Decision 2007/855/EC of 15 October 2007 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part (OJ L 345, 28.12.2007, p. 1).

(18)  Council Decision 2008/474/EC of 16 June 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (OJ L 169, 30.6.2008, p. 10) — Protocol 6.

(19)  Council Decision 2010/36/EC of 29 April 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (OJ L 28, 30.1.2010, p. 1).

(20)  Council Decision 2012/164/EU of 14 February 2012 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 93, 30.3.2012, p. 1).

(21)  List provided by the Moldovan authorities in the framework of the ongoing review, registered in the Republic of Moldova.

---