# Official Journal C 87/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.087.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 87 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5216 April 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.087.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 87

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5216 April 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 087/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2009/C 087/02 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 087/01

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2009/C 087/02

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive) (
  1
  )

Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive

1

2

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 087/03 | State aid — The Netherlands State aid C 45/08 (ex NN 97/05) — Aid for Farm Dairy Flevoland Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty | 5 |
| 2009/C 087/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5403 — Lufthansa/British Midland) (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2009/C 087/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5479 — LONZA/TEVA/JV) (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 087/06 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 14 |
| 2009/C 087/07 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 20 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 087/03

State aid — The Netherlands State aid C 45/08 (ex NN 97/05) — Aid for Farm Dairy Flevoland Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

5

2009/C 087/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5403 — Lufthansa/British Midland) (
  1
  )

1

12

2009/C 087/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5479 — LONZA/TEVA/JV) (
  1
  )

1

13

OTHER ACTS

Commission

2009/C 087/06

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

14

2009/C 087/07

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

20

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 April 2009

2009/C 87/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3173 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,70 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4498 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88210 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8650 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5100 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8405 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,883 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 290,79 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3005 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1935 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1162 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8352 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6004 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2094 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2912 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9810 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 757,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,1509 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0001 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3767 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 351,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7522 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,790 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,1005 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,758 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9223 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4346 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,4370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3173

JPY

Japanese yen

130,70

DKK

Danish krone

7,4498

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88210

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8650

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5100

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8405

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,883

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

290,79

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3005

RON

Romanian leu

4,1935

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1162

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8352

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6004

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2094

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2912

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9810

KRW

South Korean won

1 757,28

ZAR

South African rand

12,1509

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0001

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3767

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 351,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7522

PHP

Philippine peso

62,790

RUB

Russian rouble

44,1005

THB

Thai baht

46,758

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9223

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4346

INR

Indian rupee

65,4370

---

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

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/2

---

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the safety of toys

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the directive)

2009/C 87/02

| ESO (1) | Reference and title of the harmonised standard (and reference document) | First publication OJ | Reference of superseded standard | Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard
  Note 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CEN | EN 71-1:2005+A6:2008
  Safety of toys — Part 1: Mechanical and physical properties | 16.9.2008 | EN 71-1:2005+A4:2007
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (30.11.2008) |
| Notice: ‘In case of projectiles toys with suction cups with an impact area, the requirement laid down in clause 4.17.1 (b), according to which the tension test is performed in accordance with clause 8.4.2.3, does not cover the risk of asphyxiation presented by these toys.’ - Commission Decision 2007/224/EC of 4 April 2007 (OJ L 96, 11.4.2007, p. 18). |
| CEN | EN 71-2:2006+A1:2007
  Safety of toys — Part 2: Flammability | 16.9.2008 | EN 71-2:2006
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (16.9.2008) |
| CEN | EN 71-3:1994
  Safety of toys — Part 3: Migration of certain elements | 12.10.1995 | EN 71-3:1988
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (30.6.1995) |
| EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000 | 14.9.2001 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.10.2000) |
| EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000/AC:2000 | 8.8.2002 | | |
| EN 71-3:1994/AC:2002 | 15.3.2003 | | |
| CEN | EN 71-4:1990
  Safety of toys — Part 4: Experimental sets for chemistry and related activities | 9.2.1991 | | |
| EN 71-4:1990/A1:1998 | 5.9.1998 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.10.1998) |
| EN 71-4:1990/A2:2003 | 9.12.2003 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.1.2004) |
| EN 71-4:1990/A3:2007 | 4.10.2007 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (30.11.2007) |
| CEN | EN 71-5:1993
  Safety of toys — Part 5: Chemical toys (sets) other than experimental sets | 1.9.1993 | | |
| EN 71-5:1993/A1:2006 | 31.5.2006 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (31.7.2006) |
| CEN | EN 71-6:1994
  Safety of toys — Part 6: Graphical symbol for age warning labelling | 22.6.1995 | | |
| CEN | EN 71-7:2002
  Safety of toys — Part 7: Finger paints - Requirements and test methods | 15.3.2003 | | |
| CEN | EN 71-8:2003
  Safety of toys — Part 8: Swings, slides and similar activity toys for indoor and outdoor family domestic use | 9.12.2003 | | |
| EN 71-8:2003/A1:2006 | 26.10.2006 | Note 3 | Date expired
  (30.11.2006) |
| CENELEC | EN 62115:2005
  Electric toys — Safety IEC 62115:2003 (Modified) + A1:2004 | 8.3.2006 | EN 50088:1996+A1:1996 +A2:1997+A3:2002
  Note 2.1 | Date expired
  (1.1.2008) |

ESO (1)

Reference and title of the harmonised standard (and reference document)

First publication OJ

Reference of superseded standard

Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard

Note 1

CEN

EN 71-1:2005+A6:2008

Safety of toys — Part 1: Mechanical and physical properties

16.9.2008

EN 71-1:2005+A4:2007

Note 2.1

Date expired

(30.11.2008)

Notice: ‘In case of projectiles toys with suction cups with an impact area, the requirement laid down in clause 4.17.1 (b), according to which the tension test is performed in accordance with clause 8.4.2.3, does not cover the risk of asphyxiation presented by these toys.’ - Commission Decision 2007/224/EC of 4 April 2007 (OJ L 96, 11.4.2007, p. 18).

CEN

EN 71-2:2006+A1:2007

Safety of toys — Part 2: Flammability

16.9.2008

EN 71-2:2006

Note 2.1

Date expired

(16.9.2008)

CEN

EN 71-3:1994

Safety of toys — Part 3: Migration of certain elements

12.10.1995

EN 71-3:1988

Note 2.1

Date expired

(30.6.1995)

EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000

14.9.2001

Note 3

Date expired

(31.10.2000)

EN 71-3:1994/A1:2000/AC:2000

8.8.2002

EN 71-3:1994/AC:2002

15.3.2003

CEN

EN 71-4:1990

Safety of toys — Part 4: Experimental sets for chemistry and related activities

9.2.1991

EN 71-4:1990/A1:1998

5.9.1998

Note 3

Date expired

(31.10.1998)

EN 71-4:1990/A2:2003

9.12.2003

Note 3

Date expired

(31.1.2004)

EN 71-4:1990/A3:2007

4.10.2007

Note 3

Date expired

(30.11.2007)

CEN

EN 71-5:1993

Safety of toys — Part 5: Chemical toys (sets) other than experimental sets

1.9.1993

EN 71-5:1993/A1:2006

31.5.2006

Note 3

Date expired

(31.7.2006)

CEN

EN 71-6:1994

Safety of toys — Part 6: Graphical symbol for age warning labelling

22.6.1995

CEN

EN 71-7:2002

Safety of toys — Part 7: Finger paints - Requirements and test methods

15.3.2003

CEN

EN 71-8:2003

Safety of toys — Part 8: Swings, slides and similar activity toys for indoor and outdoor family domestic use

9.12.2003

EN 71-8:2003/A1:2006

26.10.2006

Note 3

Date expired

(30.11.2006)

CENELEC

EN 62115:2005

Electric toys — Safety IEC 62115:2003 (Modified) + A1:2004

8.3.2006

EN 50088:1996+A1:1996 +A2:1997+A3:2002

Note 2.1

Date expired

(1.1.2008)

| Note 1: | Generally the date of cessation of presumption of conformity will be the date of withdrawal (‘dow’), set by the European Standardisation Organisation, but attention of users of these standards is drawn to the fact that in certain exceptional cases this can be otherwise. |
| --- | --- |

Note 1:

Generally the date of cessation of presumption of conformity will be the date of withdrawal (‘dow’), set by the European Standardisation Organisation, but attention of users of these standards is drawn to the fact that in certain exceptional cases this can be otherwise.

| Note 2.1: | The new (or amended) standard has the same scope as the superseded standard. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

Note 2.1:

The new (or amended) standard has the same scope as the superseded standard. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive.

| Note 2.2: | The new standard has a broader scope than the superseded standard. On the date stated the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

Note 2.2:

The new standard has a broader scope than the superseded standard. On the date stated the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive.

| Note 2.3: | The new standard has a narrower scope than the superseded standard. On the date stated the (partially) superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive for those products that fall within the scope of the new standard. Presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive for products that still fall within the scope of the (partially) superseded standard, but that do not fall within the scope of the new standard, is unaffected. |
| --- | --- |

Note 2.3:

The new standard has a narrower scope than the superseded standard. On the date stated the (partially) superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive for those products that fall within the scope of the new standard. Presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive for products that still fall within the scope of the (partially) superseded standard, but that do not fall within the scope of the new standard, is unaffected.

| Note 3: | In case of amendments, the referenced standard is EN CCCCC:YYYY, its previous amendments, if any, and the new, quoted amendment. The superseded standard (column 3) therefore consists of EN CCCCC:YYYY and its previous amendments, if any, but without the new quoted amendment. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive. |
| --- | --- |

Note 3:

In case of amendments, the referenced standard is EN CCCCC:YYYY, its previous amendments, if any, and the new, quoted amendment. The superseded standard (column 3) therefore consists of EN CCCCC:YYYY and its previous amendments, if any, but without the new quoted amendment. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of conformity with the essential requirements of the directive.

Note:

| — | Any information concerning the availability of the standards can be obtained either from the European Standardisation Organisations or from the national standardisation bodies of which the list is annexed to the Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and Council amended by the Directive 98/48/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Any information concerning the availability of the standards can be obtained either from the European Standardisation Organisations or from the national standardisation bodies of which the list is annexed to the Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and Council amended by the Directive 98/48/EC.

| — | Publication of the references in the Official Journal of the European Union does not imply that the standards are available in all the Community languages. |
| --- | --- |

—

Publication of the references in the Official Journal of the European Union does not imply that the standards are available in all the Community languages.

| — | This list replaces all the previous lists published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission ensures the updating of this list. (this note has only to be included in the case of a consolidated list). |
| --- | --- |

—

This list replaces all the previous lists published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission ensures the updating of this list. (this note has only to be included in the case of a consolidated list).

| — | More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at
  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/ |
| --- | --- |

—

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/

---

(1)  ESO: European Standards Organisation:

| — | CEN: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000, Brussels, Tel.+32 2 5500811; fax +32 2 5500819 (http://www.cen.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

CEN: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000, Brussels, Tel.+32 2 5500811; fax +32 2 5500819 (http://www.cen.eu)

| — | CENELEC: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000, Brussels, Tel.+32 2 5196871; fax +32 2 5196919 (http://www.cenelec.org) |
| --- | --- |

—

CENELEC: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000, Brussels, Tel.+32 2 5196871; fax +32 2 5196919 (http://www.cenelec.org)

| — | ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, Tel.+33 492 944200; fax +33 493 654716, (http://www.etsi.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, Tel.+33 492 944200; fax +33 493 654716, (http://www.etsi.eu)

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/5

---

STATE AID — THE NETHERLANDS

State aid C 45/08 (ex NN 97/05) — Aid for Farm Dairy Flevoland

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

2009/C 87/03

By letter of 26 November 2008, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the Netherlands of its decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development |
| Directorate M. Agricultural legislation |
| Unit M.2 Competition |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat, 130 5/94A |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax (32-2) 296 76 72 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

Directorate M. Agricultural legislation

Unit M.2 Competition

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat, 130 5/94A

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 296 76 72

These comments will be communicated to the Netherlands. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

1.   PROCEDURE

| 1. | When examining a fact sheet sent in relation to an application for exemption based on Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, the Commission came across information regarding aid granted or to be granted to Farm Dairy Flevoland. By letter of 29 June 2004 the Commission asked the Netherlands for information on this measure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

When examining a fact sheet sent in relation to an application for exemption based on Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, the Commission came across information regarding aid granted or to be granted to Farm Dairy Flevoland. By letter of 29 June 2004 the Commission asked the Netherlands for information on this measure.

| 2. | The Dutch authorities replied by letter of 28 November 2005, registered as received on 29 November 2005. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Dutch authorities replied by letter of 28 November 2005, registered as received on 29 November 2005.

| 3. | By letter of 22 May 2007 the Commission asked for further information; the Netherlands replied by letter of 22 June 2007, registered as received on 25 June 2007. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By letter of 22 May 2007 the Commission asked for further information; the Netherlands replied by letter of 22 June 2007, registered as received on 25 June 2007.

2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

| 4. | On 24 August 1998 Farm Dairy applied for aid pursuant to point 3.3 of the Flevoland Province SPD (Single Programming Document). The company intended to create both direct and indirect jobs in the region. Farm Dairy manufactures dairy products. |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 24 August 1998 Farm Dairy applied for aid pursuant to point 3.3 of the Flevoland Province SPD (Single Programming Document). The company intended to create both direct and indirect jobs in the region. Farm Dairy manufactures dairy products.

| 5. | On 23 September 1998 the Province approved that application for aid and asked for funding from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerie voor Landbouw, Natuur and Voedselkwaliteit — LNV), which agreed to grant the funding. |
| --- | --- |

5.

On 23 September 1998 the Province approved that application for aid and asked for funding from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerie voor Landbouw, Natuur and Voedselkwaliteit — LNV), which agreed to grant the funding.

| 6. | In view of this position adopted by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, the Province issued a decision granting Farm Dairy a total amount of NLG 1 575 million (EUR 715 909), informing Farm Dairy on 3 March 1999 of its intention to provide this grant. The grant was to be financed by contributions from the EAGGF, the central Government and the Province. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In view of this position adopted by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, the Province issued a decision granting Farm Dairy a total amount of NLG 1 575 million (EUR 715 909), informing Farm Dairy on 3 March 1999 of its intention to provide this grant. The grant was to be financed by contributions from the EAGGF, the central Government and the Province.

| 7. | Based on information from the European Commission to the effect that aid granted to a dairy product manufacturer would not be authorised, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture decided not to grant the public financing, informing the Province of this by letter of 14 September 1999. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Based on information from the European Commission to the effect that aid granted to a dairy product manufacturer would not be authorised, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture decided not to grant the public financing, informing the Province of this by letter of 14 September 1999.

| 8. | Following an inspection conducted by DG Agriculture, the Commission decided that the project could not be financed via the SPD and that consequently the part of the financing to come from the EAGGF would not be granted. It informed the Province of this decision by letter of 25 June 1999. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Following an inspection conducted by DG Agriculture, the Commission decided that the project could not be financed via the SPD and that consequently the part of the financing to come from the EAGGF would not be granted. It informed the Province of this decision by letter of 25 June 1999.

| 9. | The Province nevertheless decided to finance the project out of its own funds only. Farm Dairy was informed of the final granting and payment of the aid by letter of 20 November 2000. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Province nevertheless decided to finance the project out of its own funds only. Farm Dairy was informed of the final granting and payment of the aid by letter of 20 November 2000.

| 10. | On 23 February 2001 an informal meeting was held between DG Agriculture officials and representatives of Flevoland Province, at the request of the latter. The officials pointed out at the meeting that the aid to Farm Dairy was not compatible with the common market and would have to be recovered or allocated to another project. |
| --- | --- |

10.

On 23 February 2001 an informal meeting was held between DG Agriculture officials and representatives of Flevoland Province, at the request of the latter. The officials pointed out at the meeting that the aid to Farm Dairy was not compatible with the common market and would have to be recovered or allocated to another project.

| 11. | However, the Province decided to grant the aid in the form of compensation to Farm Dairy for the damage suffered as a result of the withdrawal of the decision granting the aid. The compensation was equal to the amount which Farm Dairy would have received if the aid had been authorised. |
| --- | --- |

11.

However, the Province decided to grant the aid in the form of compensation to Farm Dairy for the damage suffered as a result of the withdrawal of the decision granting the aid. The compensation was equal to the amount which Farm Dairy would have received if the aid had been authorised.

3.   PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

| 12. | Based on the available information, the Commission concludes at this point that the measure falls under Article 87(1) of the Treaty and constitutes State aid. The aid was granted to an undertaking operating on a competitive market, and was funded by Flevoland Province. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Based on the available information, the Commission concludes at this point that the measure falls under Article 87(1) of the Treaty and constitutes State aid. The aid was granted to an undertaking operating on a competitive market, and was funded by Flevoland Province.

| 13. | Since the aid was granted and paid without prior notification to the Commission, it is illegal within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Since the aid was granted and paid without prior notification to the Commission, it is illegal within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

| 14. | At this juncture, the Commission is, however, unable to conclude that the aid is compatible with the common market. The Commission does not have sufficient information at this stage to enable it to conclude that the aid is compatible with the requirements laid down in the guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products (1), applicable at the time the aid was granted. These guidelines expressly rule out investments in cow's milk and cow's milk products unless the manufacturing process involves a considerable amount of innovation or meets other criteria concerning production capacity or the existence of market outlets. There is no evidence that these criteria have been met. |
| --- | --- |

14.

At this juncture, the Commission is, however, unable to conclude that the aid is compatible with the common market. The Commission does not have sufficient information at this stage to enable it to conclude that the aid is compatible with the requirements laid down in the guidelines for State aid in connection with investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural products (1), applicable at the time the aid was granted. These guidelines expressly rule out investments in cow's milk and cow's milk products unless the manufacturing process involves a considerable amount of innovation or meets other criteria concerning production capacity or the existence of market outlets. There is no evidence that these criteria have been met.

| 15. | In accordance with point 3(d) of the guidelines, the Commission must consider whether the measures in question would be eligible for Community part-financing under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (2). It is clear from the above information that the project could not be financed via the SPD. Consequently, the Commission considers at this stage that the measure cannot benefit from the exemptions provided for in point 3(d) of the above guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

15.

In accordance with point 3(d) of the guidelines, the Commission must consider whether the measures in question would be eligible for Community part-financing under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (2). It is clear from the above information that the project could not be financed via the SPD. Consequently, the Commission considers at this stage that the measure cannot benefit from the exemptions provided for in point 3(d) of the above guidelines.

| 16. | The Dutch authorities subsequently changed the legal basis of the aid, stating that the aid had been granted by way of compensation for damage suffered as a result of an error by the authorities in initially granting aid which had later turned out to be illegal and perhaps incompatible with the common market. It is, however, clear from case law that, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 88 of the Treaty, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that Article. A diligent economic operator should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed (3). |
| --- | --- |

16.

The Dutch authorities subsequently changed the legal basis of the aid, stating that the aid had been granted by way of compensation for damage suffered as a result of an error by the authorities in initially granting aid which had later turned out to be illegal and perhaps incompatible with the common market. It is, however, clear from case law that, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 88 of the Treaty, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that Article. A diligent economic operator should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed (3).

| 17. | Dispensing aid in the form of compensation would be tantamount to circumventing the prohibition on granting aid without the Commission's approval. This is confirmed by the fact that, when Flevoland Province stated that the aid in question had been granted in the form of compensation for an error by the authorities, it was well aware that the aid should have been notified to the Commission for approval before being paid. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Dispensing aid in the form of compensation would be tantamount to circumventing the prohibition on granting aid without the Commission's approval. This is confirmed by the fact that, when Flevoland Province stated that the aid in question had been granted in the form of compensation for an error by the authorities, it was well aware that the aid should have been notified to the Commission for approval before being paid.

| 18. | Since no other legal basis was put forward by the Dutch authorities, the possibility that the aid in question may constitute operating aid cannot be ruled out at this juncture. Operating aid is aid designed to relieve an undertaking of the costs it should normally pay in the context of everyday management or activities. Such aid must, in principle, be deemed incompatible with the common market. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Since no other legal basis was put forward by the Dutch authorities, the possibility that the aid in question may constitute operating aid cannot be ruled out at this juncture. Operating aid is aid designed to relieve an undertaking of the costs it should normally pay in the context of everyday management or activities. Such aid must, in principle, be deemed incompatible with the common market.

| 19. | Therefore, in the light of the information available and following its preliminary assessment, the Commission has doubts as to the compatibility with the common market of the aid granted to Farm Dairy, and has therefore decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid declared incompatible with the common market is to be recovered from the recipient unless this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Therefore, in the light of the information available and following its preliminary assessment, the Commission has doubts as to the compatibility with the common market of the aid granted to Farm Dairy, and has therefore decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid declared incompatible with the common market is to be recovered from the recipient unless this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘Hierbij deelt de Commissie Nederland mee dat zij na onderzoek van de door uw autoriteiten verstrekte informatie over de hierboven genoemde maatregel heeft besloten de procedure van artikel 88, lid 2, van het EG-Verdrag in te leiden.

1.   PROCEDURE

| 1. | In het kader van het onderzoek van de beknopte informtatie die in verband met een verzoek om vrijstelling op grond van Verordening 68/2001 is toegestuurd, is de Commissie geïnformeerd over steun die is of zou zijn verstrekt aan Farm Dairy Flevoland. Bij brief van 29 juni 2004 (ref. AGR/16887) heeft de Commissie Nederland verzocht om informatie aangaande deze maatregel. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In het kader van het onderzoek van de beknopte informtatie die in verband met een verzoek om vrijstelling op grond van Verordening 68/2001 is toegestuurd, is de Commissie geïnformeerd over steun die is of zou zijn verstrekt aan Farm Dairy Flevoland. Bij brief van 29 juni 2004 (ref. AGR/16887) heeft de Commissie Nederland verzocht om informatie aangaande deze maatregel.

| 2. | De Nederlandse autoriteiten hebben hierop gereageerd bij brief van 28 november 2005, geregistreerd op 29 november 2005 (ref. AGR 35198). |
| --- | --- |

2.

De Nederlandse autoriteiten hebben hierop gereageerd bij brief van 28 november 2005, geregistreerd op 29 november 2005 (ref. AGR 35198).

| 3. | Bij brief van 22 mei 2007 (ref. AGR 12814) heeft de Commissie om aanvullende informatie gevraagd, op welk verzoek Nederland heeft geantwoord bij brief van 22 juni 2007, geregistreerd op 25 juni 2007 (ref. AGR 17675). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Bij brief van 22 mei 2007 (ref. AGR 12814) heeft de Commissie om aanvullende informatie gevraagd, op welk verzoek Nederland heeft geantwoord bij brief van 22 juni 2007, geregistreerd op 25 juni 2007 (ref. AGR 17675).

2.   BESCHRIJVING VAN DE MAATREGEL

2.1.   Context van de maatregel

| 4. | Farm Dairy is een bedrijf dat zuivelproducten vervaardigt. De onderneming is verhuisd naar haar huidige locatie te Lelystad in Flevoland, dat een onder doelstelling nr. 1 vallende regio is. Op 24 augustus 1998 heeft Farm Dairy een steunaanvraag ingediend op grond van punt 3.3 van het EPD (Enig Programmeringsdocument) van de Provincie Flevoland. De vestiging van deze onderneming zou zowel direct als indirect voor extra werkgelegenheid in de regio zorgen. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Farm Dairy is een bedrijf dat zuivelproducten vervaardigt. De onderneming is verhuisd naar haar huidige locatie te Lelystad in Flevoland, dat een onder doelstelling nr. 1 vallende regio is. Op 24 augustus 1998 heeft Farm Dairy een steunaanvraag ingediend op grond van punt 3.3 van het EPD (Enig Programmeringsdocument) van de Provincie Flevoland. De vestiging van deze onderneming zou zowel direct als indirect voor extra werkgelegenheid in de regio zorgen.

| 5. | Op 23 september 1998 heeft de Provincie naar aanleiding van deze steunaanvraag een gunstig advies afgegeven. De Provincie baseerde zich in dit besluit onder andere op de gunstige perspectieven in termen van werkgelegenheid, milieu, het drukken van de transportkosten voor de melk (tot die tijd werd de in Flevoland geproduceerde melk buiten Flevoland verwerkt, soms zelfs in België) en de rentabiliteitsverwachtingen van de onderneming. Farm Dairy verwachtte namelijk contracten te kunnen afsluiten met de in Flevoland gevestigde zuivelproducenten, alsmede met een bekende supermarktketen, waarmee men verzekerd zou zijn van de afname van de zuivelproducten. Farm Dairy zou naar schatting 48 miljoen kilo melk op jaarbasis verwerken. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Op 23 september 1998 heeft de Provincie naar aanleiding van deze steunaanvraag een gunstig advies afgegeven. De Provincie baseerde zich in dit besluit onder andere op de gunstige perspectieven in termen van werkgelegenheid, milieu, het drukken van de transportkosten voor de melk (tot die tijd werd de in Flevoland geproduceerde melk buiten Flevoland verwerkt, soms zelfs in België) en de rentabiliteitsverwachtingen van de onderneming. Farm Dairy verwachtte namelijk contracten te kunnen afsluiten met de in Flevoland gevestigde zuivelproducenten, alsmede met een bekende supermarktketen, waarmee men verzekerd zou zijn van de afname van de zuivelproducten. Farm Dairy zou naar schatting 48 miljoen kilo melk op jaarbasis verwerken.

| 6. | Op 14 december 1998 heeft de Provincie bij het ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) een verzoek om medefinanciering ingediend, alsmede een verzoek om projectevaluatie. Het ministerie heeft zich vóór het project uitgesproken, op basis van een onder andere vanuit economisch perspectief gunstige beoordeling. Het ministerie heeft ook aangegeven dat het productieproces op zichzelf niet innoverend was, maar dat er wel sprake was van marktinnovatie. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Op 14 december 1998 heeft de Provincie bij het ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) een verzoek om medefinanciering ingediend, alsmede een verzoek om projectevaluatie. Het ministerie heeft zich vóór het project uitgesproken, op basis van een onder andere vanuit economisch perspectief gunstige beoordeling. Het ministerie heeft ook aangegeven dat het productieproces op zichzelf niet innoverend was, maar dat er wel sprake was van marktinnovatie.

| 7. | Naar aanleiding van dit standpunt van het ministerie van LNV heeft de Provincie besloten een subsidie van in totaal 1,575 miljoen gulden (zijnde 715 909 euro) aan Farm Dairy te verlenen. De Provincie heeft Farm Dairy op 3 maart 1999 meegedeeld dat zij voornemens was deze subsidie te verstrekken. De subsidie zou gefinancierd worden door middel van bijdragen uit het EOGFL, van de rijksoverheid en de Provincie. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Naar aanleiding van dit standpunt van het ministerie van LNV heeft de Provincie besloten een subsidie van in totaal 1,575 miljoen gulden (zijnde 715 909 euro) aan Farm Dairy te verlenen. De Provincie heeft Farm Dairy op 3 maart 1999 meegedeeld dat zij voornemens was deze subsidie te verstrekken. De subsidie zou gefinancierd worden door middel van bijdragen uit het EOGFL, van de rijksoverheid en de Provincie.

| 8. | Naar aanleiding van twijfels over de mogelijkheid dat de Europese Commissie de steun zou goedkeuren, heeft het ministerie van LNV besloten dat geen overheidsfinanciering zou plaatsvinden, waarvan zij de Provincie bij brief van 14 september 1999 op de hoogte heeft gesteld. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Naar aanleiding van twijfels over de mogelijkheid dat de Europese Commissie de steun zou goedkeuren, heeft het ministerie van LNV besloten dat geen overheidsfinanciering zou plaatsvinden, waarvan zij de Provincie bij brief van 14 september 1999 op de hoogte heeft gesteld.

| 9. | Het directoraat-generaal Landbouw heeft naar aanleiding van een door haar uitgevoerde controle vastgesteld dat het project niet via het EDP kon worden gefinancierd, en dat het uit het EOGFL te financieren deel van de steun daarom niet zou worden toegekend. Van dit besluit heeft het DG Landbouw de Provincie bij brief van 25 juni 1999 in kennis gesteld. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Het directoraat-generaal Landbouw heeft naar aanleiding van een door haar uitgevoerde controle vastgesteld dat het project niet via het EDP kon worden gefinancierd, en dat het uit het EOGFL te financieren deel van de steun daarom niet zou worden toegekend. Van dit besluit heeft het DG Landbouw de Provincie bij brief van 25 juni 1999 in kennis gesteld.

| 10. | De Provincie heeft niettemin besloten het project te financieren, en wel uitsluitend uit provinciefondsen. Bij brief van 20 november 2000 is Farm Dairy op de hoogte gebracht van de definitieve toekenning van deze subsidie en de betaling daarvan. |
| --- | --- |

10.

De Provincie heeft niettemin besloten het project te financieren, en wel uitsluitend uit provinciefondsen. Bij brief van 20 november 2000 is Farm Dairy op de hoogte gebracht van de definitieve toekenning van deze subsidie en de betaling daarvan.

| 11. | Op 23 februari 2001 heeft er op verzoek van de Provincie Flevoland een informele ontmoeting plaatsgevonden tussen ambtenaren van het DG Landbouw en vertegenwoordigers van de Provincie Flevoland, op aanvraag van de Provincie. Tijdens deze bijeenkomst zouden ambtenaren van het DG Landbouw aangegeven hebben dat de steun aan Farm Dairy niet verenigbaar was met de gemeenschappelijke markt en dat deze teruggevorderd moest worden, waarbij deze fondsen desnoods in het kader van een ander project konden worden gebruikt. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Op 23 februari 2001 heeft er op verzoek van de Provincie Flevoland een informele ontmoeting plaatsgevonden tussen ambtenaren van het DG Landbouw en vertegenwoordigers van de Provincie Flevoland, op aanvraag van de Provincie. Tijdens deze bijeenkomst zouden ambtenaren van het DG Landbouw aangegeven hebben dat de steun aan Farm Dairy niet verenigbaar was met de gemeenschappelijke markt en dat deze teruggevorderd moest worden, waarbij deze fondsen desnoods in het kader van een ander project konden worden gebruikt.

| 12. | De Provincie heeft er desondanks voor gekozen de steun te verlenen in de vorm van een vergoeding aan Farm Dairy wegens de geleden schade als gevolg van het intrekken van het steunverleningsbesluit. De hoogte van die schadevergoeding was gelijk aan het bedrag dat Farm Dairy zou hebben ontvangen indien de steunverlening wel zou zijn toegestaan. De Provincie was namelijk van mening dat, aangezien in het steunverleningsbesluit niet de mogelijkheid was opgenomen de steun in te trekken, zij aan dit besluit gebonden was en verplicht was de steun toe te kennen, wilde zij niet geconfronteerd worden met gerechtelijke stappen van de zijde van Farm Dairy. De Provincie heeft haar voorstel tot schadevergoeding bij brief van 10 mei 2001 aan Farm Dairy voorgelegd. Farm Dairy heeft dit voorstel bij brief van 21 mei 2001 aanvaard. |
| --- | --- |

12.

De Provincie heeft er desondanks voor gekozen de steun te verlenen in de vorm van een vergoeding aan Farm Dairy wegens de geleden schade als gevolg van het intrekken van het steunverleningsbesluit. De hoogte van die schadevergoeding was gelijk aan het bedrag dat Farm Dairy zou hebben ontvangen indien de steunverlening wel zou zijn toegestaan. De Provincie was namelijk van mening dat, aangezien in het steunverleningsbesluit niet de mogelijkheid was opgenomen de steun in te trekken, zij aan dit besluit gebonden was en verplicht was de steun toe te kennen, wilde zij niet geconfronteerd worden met gerechtelijke stappen van de zijde van Farm Dairy. De Provincie heeft haar voorstel tot schadevergoeding bij brief van 10 mei 2001 aan Farm Dairy voorgelegd. Farm Dairy heeft dit voorstel bij brief van 21 mei 2001 aanvaard.

2.2.   Rechtsgrondslag

| 13. | Aanvankelijk was de steun verleend in het kader van het EDP van de Provincie Flevoland. Vervolgens is de steun, om redenen die hiervoor uiteengezet zijn, verleend in de vorm van een vergoeding voor de geleden verliezen als gevolg van het besluit tot intrekking van de steunverlening. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Aanvankelijk was de steun verleend in het kader van het EDP van de Provincie Flevoland. Vervolgens is de steun, om redenen die hiervoor uiteengezet zijn, verleend in de vorm van een vergoeding voor de geleden verliezen als gevolg van het besluit tot intrekking van de steunverlening.

2.3.   Bedrag van de steun

| 14. | De steun bedraagt 1 575 000 NLG, d.i. 715 909 euro. Dit bedrag komt overeen met 8,5 % van het bedrag aan investeringen, die 18 597 000 NLG belopen. |
| --- | --- |

14.

De steun bedraagt 1 575 000 NLG, d.i. 715 909 euro. Dit bedrag komt overeen met 8,5 % van het bedrag aan investeringen, die 18 597 000 NLG belopen.

2.4.   Begunstigde

| 15. | De begunstigde is Farm Dairy B.V., gevestigd te Lelystad. Het gaat om een onderneming die zuivelproducten vervaardigt, zoals yoghurt en andere desserts op basis van melk. |
| --- | --- |

15.

De begunstigde is Farm Dairy B.V., gevestigd te Lelystad. Het gaat om een onderneming die zuivelproducten vervaardigt, zoals yoghurt en andere desserts op basis van melk.

2.5.   Duur van de maatregel

| 16. | De steun is verleend voor de periode 1 oktober 1998 tot 1 mei 2000, zijnde de data van aanvang en einde van het project van Farm Dairy. Het steunverleningsbesluit als zodanig is op 3 maart 1999 genomen. |
| --- | --- |

16.

De steun is verleend voor de periode 1 oktober 1998 tot 1 mei 2000, zijnde de data van aanvang en einde van het project van Farm Dairy. Het steunverleningsbesluit als zodanig is op 3 maart 1999 genomen.

3.   VOORLOPIGE BEOORDELING

| 17. | Overeenkomstig artikel 6, lid 1, van Verordening (EG) nr. 659/1999 van 22 maart 1999 behelst de beschikking om de formele onderzoeksprocedure in te leiden een samenvatting van de relevante feiten en rechtspunten, een eerste beoordeling van de Commissie omtrent de steunverlenende aard van de voorgestelde maatregel, alsmede de redenen waarom getwijfeld wordt aan de verenigbaarheid ervan met de gemeenschappelijke markt. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Overeenkomstig artikel 6, lid 1, van Verordening (EG) nr. 659/1999 van 22 maart 1999 behelst de beschikking om de formele onderzoeksprocedure in te leiden een samenvatting van de relevante feiten en rechtspunten, een eerste beoordeling van de Commissie omtrent de steunverlenende aard van de voorgestelde maatregel, alsmede de redenen waarom getwijfeld wordt aan de verenigbaarheid ervan met de gemeenschappelijke markt.

3.1.   Het bestaan van staatssteun in de zin van artikel 87, lid 1, van het EG-Verdrag

| 18. | Op grond van artikel 87, lid 1, van het EG-Verdrag zijn steunmaatregelen van de staten of in welke vorm dan ook met staatsmiddelen bekostigd, die de mededinging door begunstiging van bepaalde ondernemingen of bepaalde producties vervalsen of dreigen te vervalsen, onverenigbaar met de gemeenschappelijke markt, voor zover deze steun het handelsverkeer tussen de lidstaten ongunstig beïnvloedt. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Op grond van artikel 87, lid 1, van het EG-Verdrag zijn steunmaatregelen van de staten of in welke vorm dan ook met staatsmiddelen bekostigd, die de mededinging door begunstiging van bepaalde ondernemingen of bepaalde producties vervalsen of dreigen te vervalsen, onverenigbaar met de gemeenschappelijke markt, voor zover deze steun het handelsverkeer tussen de lidstaten ongunstig beïnvloedt.

| 19. | Steunmaatregel van de staat: aan deze voorwaarde is voldaan, aangezien de steunmaatregel door de Provincie Flevoland is toegekend. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Steunmaatregel van de staat: aan deze voorwaarde is voldaan, aangezien de steunmaatregel door de Provincie Flevoland is toegekend.

| 20. | Steunmaatregel die leidt tot ongunstige beïnvloeding van het handelsverkeer en de mededinging vervalst of dreigt te vervalsen: de zuivelsector staat open voor mededinging op communautair niveau (4) en is derhalve gevoelig voor elke maatregel ten gunste van de productie in een van de lidstaten. In het onderhavige geval was het doel de melk te verwerken in de provincie Flevoland, terwijl de melk voordien voor een deel in België werd verwerkt. Daarom dreigt deze maatregel de mededinging op de markt voor melk en melkproducten te vervalsen. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Steunmaatregel die leidt tot ongunstige beïnvloeding van het handelsverkeer en de mededinging vervalst of dreigt te vervalsen: de zuivelsector staat open voor mededinging op communautair niveau (4) en is derhalve gevoelig voor elke maatregel ten gunste van de productie in een van de lidstaten. In het onderhavige geval was het doel de melk te verwerken in de provincie Flevoland, terwijl de melk voordien voor een deel in België werd verwerkt. Daarom dreigt deze maatregel de mededinging op de markt voor melk en melkproducten te vervalsen.

| 21. | Maatregel waardoor bepaalde ondernemingen of bepaalde producties worden begunstigd: de steun werd aan één enkele onderneming verstrekt, te weten Farm Dairy. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Maatregel waardoor bepaalde ondernemingen of bepaalde producties worden begunstigd: de steun werd aan één enkele onderneming verstrekt, te weten Farm Dairy.

| 22. | Om deze redenen komt de Commissie in dit stadium tot de conclusie dat de maatregel in kwestie onder artikel 87, lid 1, van het EG-Verdrag valt en als staatssteun moet worden aangemerkt. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Om deze redenen komt de Commissie in dit stadium tot de conclusie dat de maatregel in kwestie onder artikel 87, lid 1, van het EG-Verdrag valt en als staatssteun moet worden aangemerkt.

3.2.   Het kwalificeren van de maatregel als onrechtmatige steun

| 23. | Aangezien de steun is toegekend en uitbetaald zonder vooraf te zijn aangemeld, gaat het om onrechtmatige steun in de zin van artikel 1, punt f) van Verordening (EG) nr. 1659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Aangezien de steun is toegekend en uitbetaald zonder vooraf te zijn aangemeld, gaat het om onrechtmatige steun in de zin van artikel 1, punt f) van Verordening (EG) nr. 1659/1999.

3.3.   Voorlopige beoordeling van de verenigbaarheid van de steun

| 24. | De Nederlandse autoriteiten hebben de steun op tweeërlei wijze gerechtvaardigd. Aanvankelijk, dat wil zeggen bij het toekennen van de steun, werd aangegeven dat het om investeringssteun ging, die binnen het kader van het EPD Flevoland zou moeten vallen (zie hierboven). Vervolgens, nadat de Europese Commissie had aangegeven dat op deze basis geen financieringsbijdrage zou worden verstrekt, hebben de autoriteiten van de Provincie Flevoland deze investeringssteun omgezet in een schadevergoeding voor de geleden verliezen als gevolg van het niet toekennen van de steun. Het voorlopige onderzoek van de steunmaatregel in het onderhavige besluit zal dan ook in drie onderdelen worden opgesplitst: onderzoek naar de verenigbaarheid van de steun als investeringssteun (3.3.1.), als schadevergoeding (3.3.2.) en onderzoek naar eventuele andere rechtsgrondslagen (3.3.3.). |
| --- | --- |

24.

De Nederlandse autoriteiten hebben de steun op tweeërlei wijze gerechtvaardigd. Aanvankelijk, dat wil zeggen bij het toekennen van de steun, werd aangegeven dat het om investeringssteun ging, die binnen het kader van het EPD Flevoland zou moeten vallen (zie hierboven). Vervolgens, nadat de Europese Commissie had aangegeven dat op deze basis geen financieringsbijdrage zou worden verstrekt, hebben de autoriteiten van de Provincie Flevoland deze investeringssteun omgezet in een schadevergoeding voor de geleden verliezen als gevolg van het niet toekennen van de steun. Het voorlopige onderzoek van de steunmaatregel in het onderhavige besluit zal dan ook in drie onderdelen worden opgesplitst: onderzoek naar de verenigbaarheid van de steun als investeringssteun (3.3.1.), als schadevergoeding (3.3.2.) en onderzoek naar eventuele andere rechtsgrondslagen (3.3.3.).

3.3.1.   Investeringssteun

| 25. | De Commissie heeft de maatregelen onderzocht in het licht van de regelgeving die van toepassing was op het moment waarop de maatregel werd toegekend, dat wil zeggen op 3 maart 1999. In dit geval gaat het om de kaderregeling inzake staatssteun voor investeringen voor de verwerking en de afzet van landbouwproducten (5) (hierna „de kaderregeling” genoemd). |
| --- | --- |

25.

De Commissie heeft de maatregelen onderzocht in het licht van de regelgeving die van toepassing was op het moment waarop de maatregel werd toegekend, dat wil zeggen op 3 maart 1999. In dit geval gaat het om de kaderregeling inzake staatssteun voor investeringen voor de verwerking en de afzet van landbouwproducten (5) (hierna „de kaderregeling” genoemd).

| 26. | Krachtens punt 3, onder b), van de kaderregeling wordt investeringssteun ten behoeve van investeringen als genoemd in punt 1.2, tweede en derde streepje, van de bijlage bij Beschikking 94/173/EG van de Commissie geacht onverenigbaar te zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt. Daarnaast worden investeringen die op grond van punt 2 van diezelfde bijlage zijn uitgesloten, eveneens geacht onverenigbaar te zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt indien niet wordt voldaan aan de daarin genoemde bijzondere voorwaarden. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Krachtens punt 3, onder b), van de kaderregeling wordt investeringssteun ten behoeve van investeringen als genoemd in punt 1.2, tweede en derde streepje, van de bijlage bij Beschikking 94/173/EG van de Commissie geacht onverenigbaar te zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt. Daarnaast worden investeringen die op grond van punt 2 van diezelfde bijlage zijn uitgesloten, eveneens geacht onverenigbaar te zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt indien niet wordt voldaan aan de daarin genoemde bijzondere voorwaarden.

| 27. | In het onderhavige geval is punt 2.3 van Beschikking nr. 94/173/EG van belang, waarin het volgende wordt bepaald:
  „In de sector koemelk en koemelkprodukten komen de volgende investeringen niet voor bijstand in aanmerking:






  — | [...] |
| --- | --- | --- |

27.

In het onderhavige geval is punt 2.3 van Beschikking nr. 94/173/EG van belang, waarin het volgende wordt bepaald:

„In de sector koemelk en koemelkprodukten komen de volgende investeringen niet voor bijstand in aanmerking:

—

[...]

| — | investeringen met betrekking tot de volgende producten: boter, weipoeder, melkpoeder, butteroil, lactose, caseïne en caseïnaten, |
| --- | --- |

—

investeringen met betrekking tot de volgende producten: boter, weipoeder, melkpoeder, butteroil, lactose, caseïne en caseïnaten,

| — | investeringen voor de bereiding van verse producten en kaas, behalve producten die in belangrijke mate innoverend inspelen op de ontwikkeling van de vraag, producten waarvoor is aangetoond dat de capaciteit ontoereikend is en dat er daadwerkelijk afzetmogelijkheden voor die producten bestaan, en producten die volgens de in de Gemeenschapsvoorschriften omschreven traditionele of biologische methoden worden bereid.
  De bovenstaande beperkingen gelden niet voor de volgende investeringen, voor zover zij niet leiden tot een uitbreiding van de capaciteit: |
| --- | --- |

—

investeringen voor de bereiding van verse producten en kaas, behalve producten die in belangrijke mate innoverend inspelen op de ontwikkeling van de vraag, producten waarvoor is aangetoond dat de capaciteit ontoereikend is en dat er daadwerkelijk afzetmogelijkheden voor die producten bestaan, en producten die volgens de in de Gemeenschapsvoorschriften omschreven traditionele of biologische methoden worden bereid.

De bovenstaande beperkingen gelden niet voor de volgende investeringen, voor zover zij niet leiden tot een uitbreiding van de capaciteit:

| — | investeringen met het oog op aanpassing aan de sanitaire voorschriften van de Gemeenschap, |
| --- | --- |

—

investeringen met het oog op aanpassing aan de sanitaire voorschriften van de Gemeenschap,

| — | investeringen op het gebied van milieubescherming.” |
| --- | --- |

—

investeringen op het gebied van milieubescherming.”

| 28. | Hieruit volgt dat, a priori, een investeringssteun voor de bereiding van verse produkten zoals de steun die hier onderzocht wordt, niet verenigbaar zou zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt, tenzij deze investering in aanmerking zou komen voor de toepassing van één van de uitzonderingen vermeld in punt 2.3 van de bijlage bij Beschikking 94/173/EG. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Hieruit volgt dat, a priori, een investeringssteun voor de bereiding van verse produkten zoals de steun die hier onderzocht wordt, niet verenigbaar zou zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt, tenzij deze investering in aanmerking zou komen voor de toepassing van één van de uitzonderingen vermeld in punt 2.3 van de bijlage bij Beschikking 94/173/EG.

| 29. | In dit stadium beschikt de Commissie niet over voldoende elementen op basis waarvan kan worden geconcludeerd dat de door Farm Dairy gedane investeringen voldoen aan een van de bovengenoemde voorwaarden, waardoor op hen het verbod inzake investeringssteun niet van toepassing zou zijn. Met name is niet duidelijk of er bij de productie in belangrijke mate sprake is van innovatie, in overeenstemming met de ontwikkelingen aan de vraagzijde, of er onvoldoende capaciteit is dan wel of er reële of effectieve afzetmogelijkheden bestaan. |
| --- | --- |

29.

In dit stadium beschikt de Commissie niet over voldoende elementen op basis waarvan kan worden geconcludeerd dat de door Farm Dairy gedane investeringen voldoen aan een van de bovengenoemde voorwaarden, waardoor op hen het verbod inzake investeringssteun niet van toepassing zou zijn. Met name is niet duidelijk of er bij de productie in belangrijke mate sprake is van innovatie, in overeenstemming met de ontwikkelingen aan de vraagzijde, of er onvoldoende capaciteit is dan wel of er reële of effectieve afzetmogelijkheden bestaan.

| 30. | De Commissie merkt op dat de Nederlandse autoriteiten in de briefwisseling niet hebben aangegeven dat aan deze voorwaarden was voldaan. Integendeel, uit de door de Nederlandse autoriteiten overgelegde documentatie blijkt dat het productieproces niet innoverend is (zie nota van het ministerie van Landbouw van 14 december 1998, die als bijlage is gevoegd bij de brief van Nederland aan de Commissie van 29 november 2005). Daarom plaatst de Commissie in dit stadium twijfels bij de verenigbaarheid van de maatregel in kwestie met de regelgeving inzake investeringssteun. |
| --- | --- |

30.

De Commissie merkt op dat de Nederlandse autoriteiten in de briefwisseling niet hebben aangegeven dat aan deze voorwaarden was voldaan. Integendeel, uit de door de Nederlandse autoriteiten overgelegde documentatie blijkt dat het productieproces niet innoverend is (zie nota van het ministerie van Landbouw van 14 december 1998, die als bijlage is gevoegd bij de brief van Nederland aan de Commissie van 29 november 2005). Daarom plaatst de Commissie in dit stadium twijfels bij de verenigbaarheid van de maatregel in kwestie met de regelgeving inzake investeringssteun.

| 31. | Overigens heeft de Commissie de steun nagekeken in het licht van artikel 3, d) van de vermelde richtlijnen, die aangeven dat de Commissie per geval moet onderzoeken in hoeverre een steunmaatregel die op grond van deze richtsnoeren en dienstige maatregelen moet worden uitgesloten maar in beginsel wel voor communautaire medefinanciering op grond van Verordening 2328/91 (6) in aanmerking komt. Uit de brief die door de Commissie aan Nederland opgestuurd werd op 25 juni 1999 volgt dat het project niet gefinancierd kon worden door middel van het EPD. Bijgevolg is de Commissie in dit stadium van mening dat de uitzonderingen vermeld in punt 3, d) van vermelde kaderregeling niet van toepassing zijn op de onderhavige maatregel. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Overigens heeft de Commissie de steun nagekeken in het licht van artikel 3, d) van de vermelde richtlijnen, die aangeven dat de Commissie per geval moet onderzoeken in hoeverre een steunmaatregel die op grond van deze richtsnoeren en dienstige maatregelen moet worden uitgesloten maar in beginsel wel voor communautaire medefinanciering op grond van Verordening 2328/91 (6) in aanmerking komt. Uit de brief die door de Commissie aan Nederland opgestuurd werd op 25 juni 1999 volgt dat het project niet gefinancierd kon worden door middel van het EPD. Bijgevolg is de Commissie in dit stadium van mening dat de uitzonderingen vermeld in punt 3, d) van vermelde kaderregeling niet van toepassing zijn op de onderhavige maatregel.

3.3.2.   Vergoeding van de geleden schade als gevolg van het niet toekennen van de steun

| 32. | De Nederlandse autoriteiten hebben aangegeven dat de steun is verleend in de vorm van een vergoeding voor de geleden schade als gevolg van de door de overheid gemaakte fout, aangezien zij de steun in eerste instantie had toegekend, terwijl later bleek dat die steun onrechtmatig en misschien onverenigbaar was. |
| --- | --- |

32.

De Nederlandse autoriteiten hebben aangegeven dat de steun is verleend in de vorm van een vergoeding voor de geleden schade als gevolg van de door de overheid gemaakte fout, aangezien zij de steun in eerste instantie had toegekend, terwijl later bleek dat die steun onrechtmatig en misschien onverenigbaar was.

| 33. | Het Hof heeft geoordeeld dat de betaling van schadevergoeding niet als steun kan worden aangemerkt (7). Het Hof heeft zich daarbij gebaseerd op het feit dat overheidssteun en schadevergoeding een verschillend rechtskarakter dragen. Daarom levert de betaling van een schadevergoeding de begunstigde daarvan in beginsel geen voordeel op, omdat het eenvoudigweg gaat om compensatie voor een door hem genoten recht. |
| --- | --- |

33.

Het Hof heeft geoordeeld dat de betaling van schadevergoeding niet als steun kan worden aangemerkt (7). Het Hof heeft zich daarbij gebaseerd op het feit dat overheidssteun en schadevergoeding een verschillend rechtskarakter dragen. Daarom levert de betaling van een schadevergoeding de begunstigde daarvan in beginsel geen voordeel op, omdat het eenvoudigweg gaat om compensatie voor een door hem genoten recht.

| 34. | In onderhavig geval kan moeilijk worden beweerd dat de begunstigde recht op steun heeft, aangezien dit vermeende recht reeds vanaf het begin zijn grondslag vond in een onrechtmatige gedraging van de lidstaat. Uit constante jurisprudentie blijkt namelijk dat gezien het dwingende karakter van de door de Commissie op grond van artikel 88 van het EG-Verdrag uitgevoerde controle op staatssteun, ondernemingen die staatssteun genieten in beginsel alleen een gewettigd vertrouwen in de rechtmatigheid van die steun mogen hebben indien deze is verleend met inachtneming van de in genoemd artikel vastgestelde procedure. Normaal gesproken mag van een serieuze deelnemer aan het economisch verkeer namelijk worden verwacht dat hij in staat is zich ervan te vergewissen dat deze procedure is nageleefd (8). |
| --- | --- |

34.

In onderhavig geval kan moeilijk worden beweerd dat de begunstigde recht op steun heeft, aangezien dit vermeende recht reeds vanaf het begin zijn grondslag vond in een onrechtmatige gedraging van de lidstaat. Uit constante jurisprudentie blijkt namelijk dat gezien het dwingende karakter van de door de Commissie op grond van artikel 88 van het EG-Verdrag uitgevoerde controle op staatssteun, ondernemingen die staatssteun genieten in beginsel alleen een gewettigd vertrouwen in de rechtmatigheid van die steun mogen hebben indien deze is verleend met inachtneming van de in genoemd artikel vastgestelde procedure. Normaal gesproken mag van een serieuze deelnemer aan het economisch verkeer namelijk worden verwacht dat hij in staat is zich ervan te vergewissen dat deze procedure is nageleefd (8).

| 35. | In dezen is het eveneens van belang op te merken dat het verlenen van steun in de vorm van een schadevergoeding zou betekenen dat het verbod op het toekennen van steun zonder goedkeuring door de Commissie zou worden omzeild. Dit wordt overigens bevestigd door het feit dat op het moment dat de Provincie Flevoland aangaf dat de steun in kwestie zou worden toegekend in het kader van een vergoeding voor de door de overheid gemaakte fout, zij zich terdege bewust was van het feit dat de steun vóór toekenning daarvan ter goedkeuring aan de Commissie had moeten worden voorgelegd. |
| --- | --- |

35.

In dezen is het eveneens van belang op te merken dat het verlenen van steun in de vorm van een schadevergoeding zou betekenen dat het verbod op het toekennen van steun zonder goedkeuring door de Commissie zou worden omzeild. Dit wordt overigens bevestigd door het feit dat op het moment dat de Provincie Flevoland aangaf dat de steun in kwestie zou worden toegekend in het kader van een vergoeding voor de door de overheid gemaakte fout, zij zich terdege bewust was van het feit dat de steun vóór toekenning daarvan ter goedkeuring aan de Commissie had moeten worden voorgelegd.

| 36. | De Commissie plaatst dan ook haar twijfels bij de vraag of het verlenen van het predicaat schadevergoeding een afdoende rechtvaardiging vormt om te concluderen dat de onderhavige maatregel niet als steun moet worden aangemerkt. |
| --- | --- |

36.

De Commissie plaatst dan ook haar twijfels bij de vraag of het verlenen van het predicaat schadevergoeding een afdoende rechtvaardiging vormt om te concluderen dat de onderhavige maatregel niet als steun moet worden aangemerkt.

3.3.3.   Andere rechtsgrondslagen op grond waarvan de steun verenigbaar zou zijn

| 37. | Nu de Nederlandse autoriteiten geen andere rechtsgrondslagen hebben aangevoerd ten behoeve van het onderzoek en het eventueel goedkeuren van de aan Farm Dairy toegekende maatregel, kan in dit stadium niet worden uitgesloten dat de voorgenomen steun als exploitatiesteun moet worden aangemerkt, anders gezegd steun die erop gericht is de onderneming te vrijwaren van de kosten die zij zelf normaliter voor het dagelijks beheer of de normale bedrijfsvoering had moeten dragen. Dergelijke steun moet in beginsel als onverenigbaar met de gemeenschappelijke markt worden beschouwd. |
| --- | --- |

37.

Nu de Nederlandse autoriteiten geen andere rechtsgrondslagen hebben aangevoerd ten behoeve van het onderzoek en het eventueel goedkeuren van de aan Farm Dairy toegekende maatregel, kan in dit stadium niet worden uitgesloten dat de voorgenomen steun als exploitatiesteun moet worden aangemerkt, anders gezegd steun die erop gericht is de onderneming te vrijwaren van de kosten die zij zelf normaliter voor het dagelijks beheer of de normale bedrijfsvoering had moeten dragen. Dergelijke steun moet in beginsel als onverenigbaar met de gemeenschappelijke markt worden beschouwd.

| 38. | Op basis van het thans voorliggende dossier beschikt de Commissie niet over informatie op grond waarvan zij kan beoordelen of de steun verenigbaar is met andere op het moment van de steunverlening geldende richtsnoeren of kaderregelingen. De Commissie herinnert er in dit opzicht aan dat het aan de betrokken lidstaat is om in het kader van diens samenverwerkingsverplichting jegens de Commissie alle informatie te verstrekken aan de hand waarvan deze laatste kan verifiëren of is voldaan aan de voorwaarden op grond waarvan deze lidstaat zou mogen afwijken van de relevante regelgeving (9). |
| --- | --- |

38.

Op basis van het thans voorliggende dossier beschikt de Commissie niet over informatie op grond waarvan zij kan beoordelen of de steun verenigbaar is met andere op het moment van de steunverlening geldende richtsnoeren of kaderregelingen. De Commissie herinnert er in dit opzicht aan dat het aan de betrokken lidstaat is om in het kader van diens samenverwerkingsverplichting jegens de Commissie alle informatie te verstrekken aan de hand waarvan deze laatste kan verifiëren of is voldaan aan de voorwaarden op grond waarvan deze lidstaat zou mogen afwijken van de relevante regelgeving (9).

4.   BESLUIT

| 39. | Gelet op bovenstaande overwegingen verzoekt de Commissie Nederland in het kader van de procedure van artikel 88, lid 2, van het EG-Verdrag binnen een maand na de datum van ontvangst van deze brief zijn opmerkingen kenbaar te maken en alle informatie te verstrekken die van nut kan zijn voor de beoordeling van de maatregel. Zij nodigt uw autoriteiten uit onmiddellijk een kopie van deze brief aan de mogelijke begunstigde van de steun te doen toekomen. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Gelet op bovenstaande overwegingen verzoekt de Commissie Nederland in het kader van de procedure van artikel 88, lid 2, van het EG-Verdrag binnen een maand na de datum van ontvangst van deze brief zijn opmerkingen kenbaar te maken en alle informatie te verstrekken die van nut kan zijn voor de beoordeling van de maatregel. Zij nodigt uw autoriteiten uit onmiddellijk een kopie van deze brief aan de mogelijke begunstigde van de steun te doen toekomen.

| 40. | De Commissie herinnert Nederland aan de opschortende werking van artikel 88, lid 3 van het EG-Verdrag en verwijst naar artikel 14 van Verordening (EG) nr. 659/1999 van de Raad, waarin is bepaald dat iedere onrechtmatig verleende steun van de begunstigde kan worden teruggevorderd. |
| --- | --- |

40.

De Commissie herinnert Nederland aan de opschortende werking van artikel 88, lid 3 van het EG-Verdrag en verwijst naar artikel 14 van Verordening (EG) nr. 659/1999 van de Raad, waarin is bepaald dat iedere onrechtmatig verleende steun van de begunstigde kan worden teruggevorderd.

| 41. | De Commissie attendeert Nederland er hierbij op dat zij de betrokkenen op de hoogte zal brengen door middel van de bekendmaking van deze brief en een samenvatting daarvan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie. Alle bovengenoemde betrokkenen zullen in de gelegenheid worden gesteld binnen een maand na de datum van die bekendmaking hun opmerkingen kenbaar te maken.’ |
| --- | --- |

41.

De Commissie attendeert Nederland er hierbij op dat zij de betrokkenen op de hoogte zal brengen door middel van de bekendmaking van deze brief en een samenvatting daarvan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie. Alle bovengenoemde betrokkenen zullen in de gelegenheid worden gesteld binnen een maand na de datum van die bekendmaking hun opmerkingen kenbaar te maken.’

---

(1)  OJ C 29, 2.2.1996, p. 4.

1

(2)  OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.

2

(3)  ECJ, Case C-169/95 Spain v. Commission [1997] ECR I-135.

3

Spain v. Commission

(4)  Op grond van jurisprudentie van het Hof van Justitie vormt een verbetering van de concurrentiepositie van een onderneming als gevolg van staatsteun over het algemeen een bewijs voor het feit dat sprake is van concurrentievervalsing ten opzichte van andere ondernemingen die een dergelijke steun niet hebben ontvangen (Zaak C - 730/79, Jur. 1980, blz. 2671, punten 11 en 12).

4

(5)  PB C 29 van 2.2.1996, blz. 4.

5

(6)  PB L 218 van 6.8.1991, p. 1.

6

(7)  HvJ, 27.9.1988, Asteris AE vs. Helleense Republiek en EEG, gevoegde zaken 106-120/87, Jur. 1988, blz. 5515.

7

Asteris AE vs. Helleense Republiek en EEG

(8)  HvJ, 14 januari 1997, Spanje/Commissie, zaak C-169/95, Jur. blz. I-135.

8

(9)  Arrest van het Gerecht van 15 juni 2005, Regione autonoma della Sardegna/Commissie, T-171/02, Jur. blz. II-2123, punt 129.

9

---

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5403 — Lufthansa/British Midland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 87/04

| 1. | On 3 April 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘Lufthansa’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the undertaking British Midland (United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 3 April 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘Lufthansa’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the undertaking British Midland (United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Lufthansa: air transport of passengers and cargo and related services (in-flight catering, IT-services, maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircrafts), |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Lufthansa: air transport of passengers and cargo and related services (in-flight catering, IT-services, maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircrafts),

| — | for British Midland: air transport of passengers and cargo, maintenance, repair and overhaul. |
| --- | --- |

—

for British Midland: air transport of passengers and cargo, maintenance, repair and overhaul.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5403 — Lufthansa/British Midland, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5403 — Lufthansa/British Midland, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5479 — LONZA/TEVA/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 87/05

| 1. | On 3 April 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Lonza Group Ltd (‘Lonza’) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd (‘Teva’) (Lonza and Teva together, ‘the Parent Companies’) create a Joint Venture (‘the JV’), within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Council Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 3 April 2009 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Lonza Group Ltd (‘Lonza’) and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd (‘Teva’) (Lonza and Teva together, ‘the Parent Companies’) create a Joint Venture (‘the JV’), within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Council Regulation.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Lonza: the supply of various services from research to final product manufacture in the pharmaceutical, health care and life science industries, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Lonza: the supply of various services from research to final product manufacture in the pharmaceutical, health care and life science industries,

| — | for Teva: the development, production and marketing of generic pharmaceutical products and proprietary pharmaceutical products as well as (chemical) active pharmaceutical ingredients, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Teva: the development, production and marketing of generic pharmaceutical products and proprietary pharmaceutical products as well as (chemical) active pharmaceutical ingredients,

| — | for the JV: the development, production and commercialisation of biosimilar products worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the JV: the development, production and commercialisation of biosimilar products worldwide.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5479 — LONZA/TEVA/JV, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5479 — LONZA/TEVA/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

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

---

OTHER ACTS

Commission

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/14

---

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2009/C 87/06

This publication confers the right to object to the amendment application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

AMENDMENT APPLICATION

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Amendment application pursuant to Article 9

‘PARMIGIANO REGGIANO’

EC No: IT-PDO-0317-0016-26.7.2007

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Heading in the specification affected by the amendment:

| — |  | Name of product |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | | Description |
| — |  | Geographical area |
| — |  | Proof of origin |
| — | | Method of production |
| — |  | Link |
| — | | Labelling |
| — | | National requirements |
| — | | Other (to be specified) |

—



Name of product

—

Image

Description

—



Geographical area

—



Proof of origin

—

Image

Method of production

—



Link

—

Image

Labelling

—

Image

National requirements

—

Image

Other (to be specified)

2.   Type of change:

| — |  | Amendment to single document or summary sheet |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | | Amendment to specification of registered PDO or PGI for which neither the single document nor the summary sheet has been published |
| — |  | Amendment to specification that requires no amendment to the published single document (Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006) |
| — |  | Temporary amendment to specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by the public authorities (Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006) |

—



Amendment to single document or summary sheet

—

Image

Amendment to specification of registered PDO or PGI for which neither the single document nor the summary sheet has been published

—



Amendment to specification that requires no amendment to the published single document (Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

—



Temporary amendment to specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by the public authorities (Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

3.   Amendment(s):

3.1.   Description

The characteristics of the finished product are described in greater detail.

The feeding methods for the cattle producing the milk used to manufacture Parmigiano Reggiano PDO cheese are described in greater detail in order to make clear what elements are subject to checking.

3.2.   Method of production

The dairy cattle feeding stuffs which are permitted and those which are prohibited are specified.

To prevent any risk of contamination of the farm environment, including via the soil or fodder, keeping silage of any type on the farm holding is also prohibited. It is specified that, where applicable, meat animals should be reared at different premises and kept separate from the dairy animals.

Specifications relating to the dimensions and use of the vats have been introduced, stipulating the application of established traditional practices so as to conserve the artisanal character of the cheese making and the link with the local land. There has been the introduction of the option of re-using 15 % of the dairy vats for a second cheese-making process prompted by the specific technical and operational conditions in place in the Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO production area. This new option is meant to address the problem of increased bovine milk production evidenced by the statistics, enabling dairies to make use of the increased volumes of milk produced without having to install new vats or other structures. This 15 % of vats corresponds to the average maximum increase in milk production.

Reference to hot brand marking was removed since, under the regulations in force, open flames are not permitted in maturing warehouses.

3.3.   Labelling

To ensure authenticity and the correct identification of pre-packaged, grated or portioned ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese placed on the market, a specification has been introduced for the label: the mandatory presence of the distinctive trademark comprising, in the top part, the image of a segment and a wheel of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese next to a knife and, at the bottom, the words ‘PARMIGIANO REGGIANO’.

This precludes the need for the wording ‘Parmigiano Reggiano o CFPR’ on the casein nameplate. Removing this element makes it possible to use other formulas, such as ‘Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano’ or the collective mark.

The expression ‘prima stagionatura’ (first maturing) is introduced as equivalent to ‘seconda categoria’ (second class) or ‘mezzano’ (semi-mature).

3.4.   National requirements

A reference to the Prime Ministerial Decree (DPCM) of 4.11.1991, which was already in force and applicable, is introduced into the cheese manufacturing standard.

3.5.   Other

It is specifically provided that portioning and packaging must be carried out in the area of origin for the purposes of quality and traceability. In accordance with the guidance given by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Cases C-66/00 and C-469/00, for consumer protection purposes, only packaging carried out in the area of origin is deemed able to guarantee the authenticity of pre-packaged portioned ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese placed on the market. This is based on the fact that the marks identifying the product, namely the marks showing origin and selection that were present on the whole cheese, are missing from portions which have no crust and are not clear on many portions with a crust; the principle is based on the need not to compromise the guarantee of authenticity of the pre-packaged product and to ensure it is completely traceable. In terms of quality, cutting into the cheese wheel deprives the cheese of the excellent natural barrier provided by the highly-dehydrated crust insulating it against the ambient air. The crust thus protects the cheese against the risks of dehydration, oxidisation, sweating, melting of lipids and the spreading of mould. To avoid such irreversible effects, it is essential that, once the wheel of cheese has been cut open, the portions should be placed under vacuum or in conditioned air according to clearly defined procedures and under the supervision of specialist staff.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘PARMIGIANO REGGIANO’

EC No: IT-PDO-0317-0016-26.7.2007

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name:

‘Parmigiano Reggiano’

2.   Member State or Third Country:

Italy

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff:

3.1.   Type of product (Annex II)

| Class 1.3. | Cheeses |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.3.

Cheeses

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

‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ is a hard cheese made from raw cow's milk, partially skimmed by natural surface skimming. The milk must not undergo any heat treatment and must come from cows fed primarily on fodder obtained in the area of origin. It must be matured for at least 12 months. ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ can be sold on the market as a whole cheese, portions or grated.

‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ shall have the following characteristics:

| — | cylindrical in form with a slightly convex or virtually straight heel, with flat faces with a slightly raised edge, |
| --- | --- |

—

cylindrical in form with a slightly convex or virtually straight heel, with flat faces with a slightly raised edge,

| — | dimensions: diameter of the flat faces 35 to 45 cm, heel height 20 to 26 cm, |
| --- | --- |

—

dimensions: diameter of the flat faces 35 to 45 cm, heel height 20 to 26 cm,

| — | minimum weight of each wheel of cheese: 30 kg, |
| --- | --- |

—

minimum weight of each wheel of cheese: 30 kg,

| — | external appearance: crust of a natural straw colour, |
| --- | --- |

—

external appearance: crust of a natural straw colour,

| — | thickness of the crust: approximately 6 mm, |
| --- | --- |

—

thickness of the crust: approximately 6 mm,

| — | colour of the body of the cheese: between light straw-coloured and straw-coloured, |
| --- | --- |

—

colour of the body of the cheese: between light straw-coloured and straw-coloured,

| — | characteristic aroma and taste: fragrant, delicate, flavoursome but not pungent, |
| --- | --- |

—

characteristic aroma and taste: fragrant, delicate, flavoursome but not pungent,

| — | texture of the body of the cheese: fine grained, flaky, |
| --- | --- |

—

texture of the body of the cheese: fine grained, flaky,

| — | fat content per dry matter: 32 % minimum. |
| --- | --- |

—

fat content per dry matter: 32 % minimum.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

Cow's milk, salt, calf rennet.

The milk comes from cows reared in the defined geographical area.

The use of additives is not permitted.

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

The cows are fed primarily on fodder from the defined geographical area, specified by quantity and quality.

At least 75 % of the dry matter of the fodder must be produced within the geographical area.

Feeding stuffs may make up at most 50 % by weight of the dry matter of the animal food.

The use of silage of any kind is prohibited.

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

The farms rearing the dairy cows whose milk is to be processed into ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ are located within the defined geographical area.

The milk must be produced and processed within the defined geographical area. The milk obtained from the evening milking and the morning milking is delivered in whole raw state to the dairy, in line with production specifications. The milk from the morning milking is placed in copper vats and mixed with that from the evening milking, partially skimmed by natural surface skimming. Native whey is added to the milk. The use of selected starters is not permitted. Following coagulation, obtained exclusively by the use of calf whey, the curd is broken up and cooked. After sedimentation, the cheese mass is transferred to the appropriate moulds to form the wheels. Markings are then affixed. After several days, the wheels are immersed in brine and then matured for a period of at least 12 months.

The minimum 12-month maturing must be carried out in the defined geographical area.

After the minimum maturing period, tests are carried out to check compliance with production specifications.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ can be sold on the market as a whole cheese, portions or grated.

For the sake of consumer protection, in order to guarantee the authenticity of pre-packaged, grated or portioned ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ placed on the market, the grating, portioning and subsequent packaging operations must be carried out in the defined geographical area. This is required because the marks identifying ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ on the whole cheese are lost or not visible on the grated or portioned product, making it necessary to guarantee the origin of the pre-packaged product. It is also required because of the need to guarantee that the cheese is packaged quickly after portioning using appropriate methods to prevent the cheese being dehydrated, oxidised or losing its original ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ organoleptic characteristics. Cutting into the cheese wheel deprives the cheese of the natural protection provided by the crust which, being itself highly dehydrated, insulates the cheese very well against the ambient air.

Portions of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ may be packaged in the year in which they are prepared.

Only the whole cheese bearing the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ may be grated; it must be packaged immediately afterwards, without any processing or addition of substances likely to modify its conservation properties or original organoleptic characteristics.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

The identification marks on each wheel of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese comprise the words ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ next to the registration number of the dairy and the year and month of production stencilled onto the surface of the heel, the oval stamp with the words ‘Parmigiano Reggiano Consorzio Tutela’, and a casein nameplate showing the codes identifying the mould and, where appropriate, the mark identifying a second class cheese.

The identification mark for pre-packaged, grated and portioned ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese placed on the market comprises, in the top part, the image of a segment and a wheel of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese next to a knife and, at the bottom, the words ‘PARMIGIANO REGGIANO’. This mark, which is a mandatory component of the label, must be reproduced in accordance with the technical specifications defined by the consortium in the relevant agreement.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

The defined geographical area comprises the territories of the Provinces of Bologna to the left of the Reno River, Mantua to the right of the River Po, Modena, Parma and Reggio in the Emilia Region.

5.   Link with the geographical area

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

In terms of the natural factors involved, particular attention should be drawn to the soil characteristics of the land within the defined geographical area, extending from the Appenine ridge to the Po, in combination with climate conditions which have a direct influence on both the composition of the natural flora and the specific fermentation characteristics of the product. In human terms, in addition to the historic relevance of the cheese in the local economy, it should be noted that the complex operations to which ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese is subjected are the fruit of traditional cheese-making techniques established over the centuries in this production area and faithfully handed down as consistent local practices.

5.2.   Specificity of the product

The specific characteristics of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese are the structure of the body of the cheese, fine grained and flaky, the fragrant aroma and delicate taste, which is flavoursome without being pungent, and its high level of solubility and digestibility.

These characteristics stem from the specific features of and selection criteria applied to the milk used raw on a daily basis in copper vats, coagulated with calf rennet with a high chymosin content, from the curing in saturated brine and prolonged maturation period.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

The peculiar physical, chemical and microbiological properties of the milk which ensure the specific characteristics and quality of ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese are basically due to the manner in which the dairy cows are fed, on a basis of fodder from the original area, strictly excluding the use of silage of any kind.

The minimum twelve-month maturing period, carried out within the geographical area defined by virtue of its specific climatic conditions is a necessary phase in order to ensure that the product obtained from the processing of the milk can acquire, through particular enzyme processes, the characteristics proper to a ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese.

Reference to publication of the specification:

(Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

The full text of the product specification is available:

| — | at the following website:
  www.politicheagricole.it/DocumentiPubblicazioni/Search_Documenti_Elenco.htm?txtTipoDocumento=Disciplinare%20in%20esame%20UE&txtDocArgomento=Prodotti%20di%20Qualit%E0>Prodotti%20Dop,%20Igp%20e%20Stg
  or: |
| --- | --- |

—

at the following website:

www.politicheagricole.it/DocumentiPubblicazioni/Search_Documenti_Elenco.htm?txtTipoDocumento=Disciplinare%20in%20esame%20UE&txtDocArgomento=Prodotti%20di%20Qualit%E0>Prodotti%20Dop,%20Igp%20e%20Stg

or:

| — | by going directly to the home page of the Ministry (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Prodotti di Qualità’ (on the left of the screen) and finally on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE (Reg CE 510/2006)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

by going directly to the home page of the Ministry (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Prodotti di Qualità’ (on the left of the screen) and finally on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE (Reg CE 510/2006)’.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---

| 16.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/20

---

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2009/C 87/07

This publication confers the right to object to the amendment application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objections must reach the Commission within six months of the date of this publication.

AMENDMENT APPLICATION

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Amendment application according to Article 9

‘BITTO’

EC No: IT-PDO-117-1502-02.08.2006

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment

| — |  | Name of product |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | | Description of product |
| — | | Geographical area |
| — |  | Proof of origin |
| — | | Method of production |
| — |  | Link |
| — | | Labelling |
| — |  | National requirements |
| — |  | Other (to be specified) |

—



Name of product

—

Image

Description of product

—

Image

Geographical area

—



Proof of origin

—

Image

Method of production

—



Link

—

Image

Labelling

—



National requirements

—



Other (to be specified)

2.   Type of amendment

| — |  | Amendment to single document or summary sheet |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | | Amendment to specification of registered PDO or PGI for which neither the single document nor summary sheet has been published |
| — |  | Amendment to specification that requires no amendment to the published single document (Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006) |
| — |  | Temporary amendment to specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by public authorities (Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006) |

—



Amendment to single document or summary sheet

—

Image

Amendment to specification of registered PDO or PGI for which neither the single document nor summary sheet has been published

—



Amendment to specification that requires no amendment to the published single document (Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

—



Temporary amendment to specification resulting from imposition of obligatory sanitary or phytosanitary measures by public authorities (Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

3.   Amendment(s)

3.1.   Description

In Article 3, it has been considered appropriate to detail the diet of the cows at pasture and to supplement it with a maximum of 3 kg of dry matter per day, in addition to salt and ‘reinforcement’ feed based on permanent pasture hay. It became necessary to supplement the diet in this manner in order to meet the needs of producers, who faced difficulties owing to the changed conditions of the mountain pastures and the genetic characteristics of the livestock in summer pasture. Indeed, grazing alone is not always sufficient to guarantee proper animal welfare. In the same article, it is made clear that that milk used is raw milk. This is a formal change only, since the current specification does not provide for the milk to be processed in any way after milking, i.e. the milk is already ‘raw milk’.

Furthermore, the maximum height of the cheese is being increased from 10 to 12 cm. This increase is justified by the production methods, which, as they are strongly linked to traditional processes, allow the production of cheeses that are not perfectly uniform, but rather vary within certain defined limits. It should also be made clear that the height range set for the heel of Bitto cheeses (8-12 cm) is in line with the information contained in the historical documents, which indeed envisage a maximum height of 12 cm.

3.2.   Geographical area

With regard to the area of origin, the requested amendment involves adding the three mountain pastures named Varrone, Artino and Lareggio, located in the provinces of Bergamo and Lecco, to the milk production area. These mountain pastures were left out of the original draft by mistake. The increase in size of the production area is minimal, since it represents less than 1 % of the current production area. The geographical uniformity is guaranteed by the fact that the lithological characteristics, altitude and exposure of the added mountain pastures are the same as for the areas already included in the production area. Accordingly, the pasture vegetation tends to be absolutely similar to that in the production area indicated originally.

3.3.   Method of production

With the amendment, the intention is to introduce the possibility of using indigenous starter cultures. This technologically innovative practice makes it possible to improve the cheese making process, reduce the incidence of defects, ensure the safety of the product and, at the same time, ensure that the typical characteristics that express the link with the land are maintained. Indeed, of the factors that are part of the cheese making process, microbiological ones play an essential role in production and maturing of the cheese. The use of raw milk in production is an asset for Bitto and traditional cheeses in general. However, it can become a liability if the microbiological quality of the milk is poor, owing to either the scarcity of lactic acid bacteria or the presence of organisms inhibiting cheese production. The reasons for the scarcity of enzymes in the milk can be sought in the greater cleanliness and hygiene of the various production stages (milking, transport of the milk, recipients and processing premises) and the use of metal or plastic recipients and utensils rather than wooden ones. Indeed, while these practices resolve problems of a hygiene/health variety, they also strip the milk of bacteria that aid cheese production by reducing the number of microorganisms in it. The presence of microbial flora that inhibit cheese production, which is sometimes noted in mountain milk, is the result of difficult production conditions, particularly in the case of very rainy summers. For cheese made with raw milk, the use of the inoculum helps to ‘regulate’ the fermentation processes in cheese making, thereby reducing the incidence of defects in the cheese. This ensures correct conditions for acidification and draining of the curd (without which, too much whey would remain in the cheese, leading to the formation of holes and unpleasant or undesirable smells). At the same time, it allows the balanced development of the various microbial species that aid cheese production which are present in the raw material (which act during the maturing process, guaranteeing the characteristic nature of the product). For traditional cheeses, the use of starter cultures isolated and selected from the characteristic microflora of each cheese is of significant interest. In this way it is possible to preserve the valuable traditional characteristics of these products and improve their quality, avoiding the risk of reducing them to standardised but anonymous products, with a flat taste and no individual characteristics. Since 1999, together with the CNR-ISPA (National Research Council – Food Science Institute) in Milan, the Protection Association (Consorzio di Tutela) has organised research aimed at gaining further knowledge about the microflora that characterises Bitto cheese, maintaining the microbial biodiversity and characteristics which this determines in the product and improving quality. Since then, strains of lactic acid bacteria and Enterococci have been isolated and studied. Further tests have been carried out on some of the strains identified in order to assess their physiological, biochemical and metabolic characteristics and their influence on cheese making. Selected inoculums have been obtained from mass reproduction of the indigenous strains. When inoculated in the raw milk, these do not repress the spontaneous microflora present in the milk, but rather create more favourable conditions for its development, thus ensuring that the sensorial characteristics are maintained.

3.4.   Labelling

In order to provide more precise information to consumers and, at the same time, to make the product more instantly recognisable, it has been deemed appropriate to describe the identifying label of the PDO in question, which was simply annexed to the specification in force, and to provide for affixing of a paper disc. In addition to the word ‘Bitto’ repeated several times in a ray formation, this disc contains the Community logo and the names of the establishments, holdings, farms, company names and private marks, which must not be laudatory or mislead consumers. The possibility of indicating the name of the mountain pasture where the cheese was produced has been introduced in order to raise the profile of the cheese produced by producers who, in conditions which are already difficult, like those of the mountain pastures in the Bitto production area (road/access conditions to and on the pasture, which are not always easy; modest rural buildings; traditional equipment; strong influence of atmospheric conditions on cattle raising and the cheese making process) voluntarily apply a production method which entails greater risks and possible losses of product. Raising the profile of the product can offset the greater risks taken by producers.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘BITTO’

EC No: IT-PDO-117-1502-02.08.2006

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name

‘Bitto’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Italy

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product (Annex II)

| Class 1.3 — | Cheeses |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.3 —

Cheeses

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

Cheese made of raw, whole cow’s milk produced from traditional local breeds, possibly supplemented by raw goat’s milk up to a maximum of 10 %. The cheese is matured for a medium to long period, has a regular cylindrical shape with an even surface, concave heel and sharp edges. The faces are between 30 and 50 cm in diameter and the heel is 8 to 12 cm high. The cheese weighs between 8 and 25 kg. The rind is pale yellow, tending to darken with age, and between 2 and 4 mm thick. The cheese is compact, with occasional small holes. When cut, the colour ranges from white to pale yellow, depending on its age. The cheese has a sweet, delicate taste, which gains in strength as it matures. If goat’s milk is added, the characteristic aroma is stronger. Fat content in dry matter is no less than 45 % and water content at 70 days is on average 38 %. The cheese is produced according to traditional methods linked to environmental conditions, during the period from 1 June to 30 September.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only)

Cow’s milk, raw goat’s milk not exceeding 10 %, calf rennet, salt, indigenous enzymes.

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only)

The cows are fed on mountain pasture grass in the area defined under point 4. In order to maintain the correct level of animal welfare, dairy cows’ pasture diet may be supplemented by up to a maximum of 3 kg of dry matter per day, consisting of the following feedingstuffs: maize, barley, wheat, soya, with molasses up to a maximum of 3 %. The cows may be given a salt lick. Also permitted is a reinforcement diet based on permanent pasture hay, for no more than 5 %, in the event of exceptional weather conditions that do not allow grazing (such as snow or hail), limited to the time needed for normal conditions to be restored.

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

Production and processing of the milk and maturing of the Bitto cheese must be carried out within the production area as defined in point 4.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.

The product may be used in grated form after at least one year of maturing.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling

The Bitto protected designation of origin cheese must bear a label on the heel affixed by heat at the end of the maturing process and before being released for consumption. The label is composed of the word Bitto, with the ‘B’ being partially legible and the rest of the letter being formed by a stylised picture of a cheese wheel with a slice cut out. The slice cut out of the cheese wheel forms the ‘V’ of Valtellina. The cheese wheel is a reference to the product. The ‘B’ is a picture, whilst the remaining letters ‘ITTO’ are in ‘Times Regular’ font, increased by 113,94 %.

To allow identification of the product, it is possible to affix a disc made of paper for food use onto one of the faces of whole wheels.

The diameter of the disc is approximately 30 cm. It is made up of an outer ring with a red background, the word ‘BITTO’ in yellow, repeated several times in a ray formation, and the Community logo for Protected Designations of Origin at an appropriate size and in the original colours and characters.

A yellow inner ring contiguous to the red ring may be used to indicate information provided for by the legislation in force and references to the names of establishments, holdings, farms, company names and private marks which must not be laudatory or mislead consumers

Producers who, in accordance with the production specification, feed dairy cows only on mountain pasture grass in the area defined in point 4, without adding any supplements other than a salt lick and permanent pasture hay only as a reinforcement for no more than 20 %, who do not use enzymes for cheese production and who begin milk processing within thirty minutes after milking, may include a mark stating the name of the mountain pasture where the cheese is produced. This is affixed in bas-relief on the heel of the cheese during production, with the name of the mountain pasture in full in ‘Times’ font, alongside the above markings.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area:

The area of origin of the milk for processing and for production of Bitto cheese comprises the whole of Sondrio province and the mountain pastures in the adjacent areas in the following municipalities of the Alta Valle Brembana area in Bergamo province: Averara, Carona, Cusio, Foppolo, Mezzoldo, Piazzatorre, Santa Brigida, Valleve and the mountain pastures named Varrone, Artino and Lareggio in the adjacent areas in the municipalities of Introbio and Premana in Lecco province.

5.   Link with the geographical area:

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area

The production area for Bitto is a mountainous area (70 % of it is above 1 500 metres, less than 8 % is below 500 metres, the gradient of the valleys is high on average, and the slopes are uneven) located between the Rhaetian and Orobian Alps, running from east to west. This influences its climate and flora and has conditioned its social, cultural and economic development. The altitude range of the area under pasture is concentrated around an average value of 486 m, which is sufficiently high to guarantee rational use of the pasture. Indeed, the significant difference in height is the indispensible condition for exploiting the pasture at the correct stage of maturity. The varying configuration of the mountain pastures in the production area makes them suitable for the simultaneous raising of different categories of livestock (including dairy cattle and goats for Bitto production). Most of the time, exposure varies too and, together with position, altitude and winds, determines the climate of the mountain pastures, which, despite the variability, are characterised by wide temperature ranges, dry air, intense exposure to the sun’s rays and plentiful summer precipitation. The pastures are almost all on acidic, not very deep soil standing on siliceous substrata of gneiss and micaceous, talcous and clayey schist. The most common botanic species are perennial and are characterised by a rapid reproductive phase, strong growth, a low and bunched growth form, accentuated development of the root system and leaves, rich perfumes and significant resistance to trampling and animal bites. A significant proportion of them belong to the Gramineae family, with those of secondary importance being Compositae, Leguminosae, Umbellifferae, Chenopodiacae, Rosaceae, etc. With regard to how the area operates, the mountain pastures are traditionally subdivided into various stations, at increasing altitudes and different locations.

5.2.   Specificity of the product

Bitto is a cheese produced exclusively in mountain pasture areas using raw milk from a single milking. The milk used comes from grazing cows and possibly goats. It is a full-fat, cooked cheese, of medium/large size, with a smooth surface and characteristic concave heel with sharp edges. The cheese is compact with occasional small holes. Its colour tends towards pale yellow (darkening with age). It is matured for a minimum of 70 days. However, it can be matured over the course of several years without its organoleptic and structural characteristics being adversely affected. In the year of production, Bitto has a sweet flavour and buttery, soluble texture. As it matures, its taste becomes more intense, its texture drier, and it becomes slightly grainy. Bitto has characteristic aromas which result from the grasses on which the dairy animals graze. If goat’s milk is added, the characteristic aroma is stronger.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI)

Among the various features of the area that play a significant role in the characteristics of Bitto, it is worth highlighting the floristic composition of the pasture, which depends on how it is managed and the natural environment (soil, climate). The pasture offers the animals very varied vegetation. The many plants present supply a large number of chemicals that play an important role in the animals’ digestive and metabolic processes and thus in determining the quality characteristics of the product. The volatile compounds present in the fodder can be transferred to the milk/dairy products via the digestive system through direct absorption from the digestive tract or through the rumen gases and thus the circulatory system, thereby giving these products characteristic aromas and flavours. In particular, the concentration in the milk of some compounds, such as terpenes, seems to be strictly linked to the animals’ diets. The natural mountain meadows, which are characterised by a wide variety of species and compounds, and in particular Magnoliopsida, have a greater number and abundance of terpenes. Mountain cheeses are also richer in terpenes than lowland cheeses. Moreover, since the terpene profile varies depending on the plant species from which the fodder is made, the nature and quantity of the terpenes in the milk (and cheese) depend on the nature of the grasses consumed by the animals. Of the most common micronutrients in the pastures’ grasses, fatty acids have received particular attention from the world of research. Unsaturated fatty acids make up more than 70 % of the total fatty acids in the grass. Of these, linoleic acid is transformed by certain rumen bacteria into cis and trans isomers, some of which are then transferred to the milk.

The livestock rearing system and processing techniques are further factors that link the product to the area. During the period of production of Bitto, from 1 June to 30 September, the animals are at pasture, at high altitudes, always in the open (there are only some pastures with facilities for bringing animals indoors in the event of adverse weather conditions). The quality of the milk reflects not only the characteristics of the fodder, but also the conditions in which the animals were raised and the environment in the broad sense. For example, the fat concentration is stimulated mainly by the notable crude fibre content of the grass, the advanced stage of lactation of the animals and the altitude. The latter two factors, together with the pasture’s richness in soluble nitrogen, are also responsible for the nitrogen increases. The levels of minerals and vitamins are also influenced not only by the plentiful availability of food, but also by the intense exposure to the sun’s rays. The milk is processed on site immediately after milking, without any processing of the raw milk, using traditional methods handed down from generation to generation and which remain craft methods to this day. In the past, immediately transforming the milk into a long-lasting cheese was the logical solution for ‘preserving’ the milk and its nutritional properties in the mountain pastures before transporting the cheeses to the bottom of the valley at the end of the summer season. Most of the steps – from filling the boiler to breaking, stirring and extracting the curd – are carried out by hand: the cheesemaker’s experience and skill are fundamentally important. The fermentation which occurs on the basis of the original microflora, together with the production technique, make it possible to obtain a unique and inimitable final product. The circular shape with a concave heel derives from the traditional moulds in which the curd is placed after extraction. Maturing begins in the mountain storehouses, where the cheese matures under natural conditions. These structures are often semi-underground in order to have a more constant temperature and the right level of humidity. During the entire maturing stage, the cheeses are periodically turned, cleaned and scraped.

Reference to publication of the specification:

The Government has launched the national objection procedure for the proposal to amend the Bitto protected designation of origin.

The full text of the product specification is available

| — | on the following web site:
  www.politicheagricole.it/DocumentiPubblicazioni/Search_Documenti_Elenco.htm?txtTipoDocumento=Disciplinare%20in%20esame%20UE&txtDocArgomento=Prodotti%20di%20Qualit%E0>Prodotti%20Dop,%20Igp%20e%20Stg
  or |
| --- | --- |

—

on the following web site:

www.politicheagricole.it/DocumentiPubblicazioni/Search_Documenti_Elenco.htm?txtTipoDocumento=Disciplinare%20in%20esame%20UE&txtDocArgomento=Prodotti%20di%20Qualit%E0>Prodotti%20Dop,%20Igp%20e%20Stg

or

| — | by going directly to the home page of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Prodotti di Qualità’ (on the left of the screen) and finally on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE (Reg. CE 510/2006)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

by going directly to the home page of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy (www.politicheagricole.it) and clicking on ‘Prodotti di Qualità’ (on the left of the screen) and finally on ‘Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE (Reg. CE 510/2006)’.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---