# Official Journal C 107/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 107 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5922 March 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 107

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5922 March 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 107/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7866 — Activision Blizzard/King) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 107/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7866 — Activision Blizzard/King) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 107/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2016/C 107/03 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 5 January 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7567 Ball/Rexam — Rapporteur: Germany | 3 |
| 2016/C 107/04 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Ball/Rexam (M.7567) | 5 |
| 2016/C 107/05 | Summary of Commission Decision of 15 January 2016 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.7567 — Ball/Rexam) (notified under document C(2016) 103)
   (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2016/C 107/06 | Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (
  1
  ) | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 107/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2016/C 107/03

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 5 January 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7567 Ball/Rexam — Rapporteur: Germany

3

2016/C 107/04

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Ball/Rexam (M.7567)

5

2016/C 107/05

Summary of Commission Decision of 15 January 2016 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.7567 — Ball/Rexam) (notified under document C(2016) 103)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2016) 103)

1

7

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2016/C 107/06

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (
  1
  )

1

11

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 107/07 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 12 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2016/C 107/07

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

12

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7866 — Activision Blizzard/King)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 107/01)

On 12 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7866. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7866. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 March 2016

(2016/C 107/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1271 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4544 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78303 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2538 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0916 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4428 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,035 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,49 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2581 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4688 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2325 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4819 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4703 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7408 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6645 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5324 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,2448 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3028 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5215 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 874,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5728 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,296 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,7226 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,370 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0897 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5916 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,9933 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1271

JPY

Japanese yen

125,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4544

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78303

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2538

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0916

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4428

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,035

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,49

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2581

RON

Romanian leu

4,4688

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2325

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4819

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4703

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7408

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6645

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5324

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,05

ZAR

South African rand

17,2448

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3028

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5215

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 874,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5728

PHP

Philippine peso

52,296

RUB

Russian rouble

76,7226

THB

Thai baht

39,370

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0897

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5916

INR

Indian rupee

74,9933

---

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

---

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 5 January 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7567 Ball/Rexam

Rapporteur: Germany

(2016/C 107/03)

Operation

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

Union Dimension

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

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

Product Market

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision.

| 4. | In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusions that for the purpose of assessing the present operation:






  (a) | Beverage cans constitute a separate market from other forms of beverage packaging solutions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusions that for the purpose of assessing the present operation:

(a)

Beverage cans constitute a separate market from other forms of beverage packaging solutions.

| (b) | Various can sizes and can types belong to the same market even though they constitute differentiated products within this market. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Various can sizes and can types belong to the same market even though they constitute differentiated products within this market.

| (c) | Can ends and can bodies form part of the same product market. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Can ends and can bodies form part of the same product market.

| (d) | Aluminium and steel cans belong to the same product market. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Aluminium and steel cans belong to the same product market.

Geographic Market

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision.

| 6. | In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusions that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant geographic markets consist of regional clusters of 700 km catchment areas around individual customer filling locations (hereinafter ‘regional clusters’) where the competitive conditions are sufficiently homogeneous. Those regional clusters comprise 700km catchment areas around individual customer filling locations located in each of the following regions: (i) the UK and Ireland; (ii) the Benelux (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands); (iii) Central Europe (Austria and Germany); (iv) France; (v) Italy; (vi) Iberia (Spain and Portugal); (vii) North-East Europe (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia); (viii) South-East Europe (Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus); and (ix) the Nordics (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland). |
| --- | --- |

6.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusions that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant geographic markets consist of regional clusters of 700 km catchment areas around individual customer filling locations (hereinafter ‘regional clusters’) where the competitive conditions are sufficiently homogeneous. Those regional clusters comprise 700km catchment areas around individual customer filling locations located in each of the following regions: (i) the UK and Ireland; (ii) the Benelux (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands); (iii) Central Europe (Austria and Germany); (iv) France; (v) Italy; (vi) Iberia (Spain and Portugal); (vii) North-East Europe (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia); (viii) South-East Europe (Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus); and (ix) the Nordics (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland).

Competitive Assessment

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation is unlikely to give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the potential markets for aluminium bottles. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation is unlikely to give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the potential markets for aluminium bottles.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation leads to a significant impediment to effective competition in the relevant markets for beverage cans. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation leads to a significant impediment to effective competition in the relevant markets for beverage cans.

| 9. | In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation leads to a significant impediment to effective competition in:






  (a) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in Central Europe: Germany and Austria; |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation leads to a significant impediment to effective competition in:

(a)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in Central Europe: Germany and Austria;

| (b) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in the Benelux; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in the Benelux;

| (c) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in France; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in France;

| (d) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in Italy; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in Italy;

| (e) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in Iberia; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in Iberia;

| (f) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in North-East Europe: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in North-East Europe: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia;

| (g) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in South-East Europe: Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in South-East Europe: Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus;

| (h) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in the Nordics: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in the Nordics: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland;

| (i) | the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in the UK and Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the cluster of catchment areas around individual customer filling locations in the UK and Ireland.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the final commitments offered by the notifying party on 3 December 2015 address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the final commitments offered by the notifying party on 3 December 2015 address the competition concerns identified by the Commission.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments offered by the notifying party on 3 December 2015, the notified operation is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments offered by the notifying party on 3 December 2015, the notified operation is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

Compatibility with Internal Market

| 12. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/5

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Ball/Rexam

(M.7567)

(2016/C 107/04)

I.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | On 15 June 2015, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) by which Ball Corporation (‘Ball’) is to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Rexam PLC (‘Rexam’) (the ‘Transaction’). Ball is referred to as the ‘Notifying Party’. Ball and Rexam are collectively referred to as the ‘Parties’. The Transaction is a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 15 June 2015, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) by which Ball Corporation (‘Ball’) is to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Rexam PLC (‘Rexam’) (the ‘Transaction’). Ball is referred to as the ‘Notifying Party’. Ball and Rexam are collectively referred to as the ‘Parties’. The Transaction is a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

II.   PROCEDURE

Article 6(1)(c) decision and access to key documents

| 2. | On 20 July 2015, the Commission adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation finding that the Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement. The serious doubts were raised in relation to beverage cans as well as aluminium bottles. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 20 July 2015, the Commission adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation finding that the Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement. The serious doubts were raised in relation to beverage cans as well as aluminium bottles.

| 3. | On 22 and 29 July 2015, the Commission provided the Notifying Party with non-confidential versions of certain key submissions of third parties collected during the Phase I investigation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 22 and 29 July 2015, the Commission provided the Notifying Party with non-confidential versions of certain key submissions of third parties collected during the Phase I investigation.

| 4. | On 3 August 2015, the Notifying Party submitted its written comments to the Article 6(1)(c) decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 3 August 2015, the Notifying Party submitted its written comments to the Article 6(1)(c) decision.

| 5. | During the Phase II investigation, the Commission sent several requests for information to the Parties and to competitors, customers and suppliers. |
| --- | --- |

5.

During the Phase II investigation, the Commission sent several requests for information to the Parties and to competitors, customers and suppliers.

Hearing of the parties

| 6. | On 29 September 2015, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation which was notified to the Notifying Party on the same day. Rexam received a non-confidential version of the SO as organised between the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

6.

On 29 September 2015, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation which was notified to the Notifying Party on the same day. Rexam received a non-confidential version of the SO as organised between the Parties.

| 7. | In the SO, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the proposed Transaction would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition, in particular through the creation of a dominant position in respect of beverage cans in the relevant geographical markets within the EEA and would as such be incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

7.

In the SO, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the proposed Transaction would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition, in particular through the creation of a dominant position in respect of beverage cans in the relevant geographical markets within the EEA and would as such be incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement.

| 8. | Access to the file took place by means of a data room and of CD-ROMs handed over at the Commission’s premises on several occasions, in particular on 30 September, 2 October, 28 October, 12 November, 1 December and 22 December 2015. The Commission dealt with some requests for additional access. I received no formal applications with respect to access to file. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Access to the file took place by means of a data room and of CD-ROMs handed over at the Commission’s premises on several occasions, in particular on 30 September, 2 October, 28 October, 12 November, 1 December and 22 December 2015. The Commission dealt with some requests for additional access. I received no formal applications with respect to access to file.

| 9. | On 13 October 2015, the Parties submitted a joint reply to the SO. They did not request an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

9.

On 13 October 2015, the Parties submitted a joint reply to the SO. They did not request an oral hearing.

| 10. | Four Letters of Facts were sent to the Notifying Party respectively on 6, 12, and 27 November 2015 and on 4 December 2015. The Notifying Party replied to these Letters of Facts on 12, 16 and 30 November 2015 and on 7 December 2015, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Four Letters of Facts were sent to the Notifying Party respectively on 6, 12, and 27 November 2015 and on 4 December 2015. The Notifying Party replied to these Letters of Facts on 12, 16 and 30 November 2015 and on 7 December 2015, respectively.

| 11. | Formal State of play meetings took place with the Parties on 10 August, 22 September and 23 October 2015 and further meetings took place during November and December 2015. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Formal State of play meetings took place with the Parties on 10 August, 22 September and 23 October 2015 and further meetings took place during November and December 2015.

Interested third persons

| 12. | Two competitors of the Parties, namely Can-Pack S.A. and Crown Holdings, Inc. were recognised as interested third persons on 19 August and 25 September 2015, respectively. Two customers of the Parties, namely SABMiller plc and Carlsberg Breweries A/S were also recognised as interested third persons on 14 August and 4 November 2015, respectively. A fifth interested third person was also recognised on 13 October 2015 as having demonstrated sufficient interested in the case but has requested for its identity not to be disclosed to the Parties pursuant to Article 5(4) of Decision 2011/695/EU. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Two competitors of the Parties, namely Can-Pack S.A. and Crown Holdings, Inc. were recognised as interested third persons on 19 August and 25 September 2015, respectively. Two customers of the Parties, namely SABMiller plc and Carlsberg Breweries A/S were also recognised as interested third persons on 14 August and 4 November 2015, respectively. A fifth interested third person was also recognised on 13 October 2015 as having demonstrated sufficient interested in the case but has requested for its identity not to be disclosed to the Parties pursuant to Article 5(4) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

| 13. | All interested third persons received non-confidential versions of the SO and were given the opportunity to make known their views. |
| --- | --- |

13.

All interested third persons received non-confidential versions of the SO and were given the opportunity to make known their views.

Commitments

| 14. | On 18 November 2015, the Notifying Party submitted commitments pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

14.

On 18 November 2015, the Notifying Party submitted commitments pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation.

| 15. | On 20 November 2015, the Commission launched a market test in order to gather the views of competitors, customers and other market participants on the proposed commitments. |
| --- | --- |

15.

On 20 November 2015, the Commission launched a market test in order to gather the views of competitors, customers and other market participants on the proposed commitments.

| 16. | On 3 December 2015, the Notifying Party submitted a final set of commitments. |
| --- | --- |

16.

On 3 December 2015, the Notifying Party submitted a final set of commitments.

| 17. | On the basis of the final set of commitments, the Commission concluded that the Transaction is compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

17.

On the basis of the final set of commitments, the Commission concluded that the Transaction is compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

III.   CONCLUSION

| 18. | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the Parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views and I have come to a positive conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the Parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views and I have come to a positive conclusion.

| 19. | Overall, I conclude that the parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Overall, I conclude that the parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case.

Brussels, 6 January 2016.

Joos STRAGIER

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

2

---

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/7

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 15 January 2016

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

(Case M.7567 — Ball/Rexam)

(notified under document C(2016) 103)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 107/05)

On 15 January 2016 the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
   (1)
  , and in particular Article 8(2) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision, as the case may be in the form of a provisional version, can be found in the authentic language of the case on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html

I.   THE PARTIES

| (1) | Ball Corporation (‘Ball’) is a company based in the United States of America. It is active worldwide in the production and supply of metal packaging for beverage, food and household products. Ball has production facilities in North America, Brazil, Europe and the Asia Pacific region. It is also present in the design, development and manufacture of aerospace systems. Ball is the largest beverage can manufacturer worldwide and the second largest beverage can manufacturer in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Ball Corporation (‘Ball’) is a company based in the United States of America. It is active worldwide in the production and supply of metal packaging for beverage, food and household products. Ball has production facilities in North America, Brazil, Europe and the Asia Pacific region. It is also present in the design, development and manufacture of aerospace systems. Ball is the largest beverage can manufacturer worldwide and the second largest beverage can manufacturer in the EEA.

| (2) | Rexam PLC (‘Rexam’) is a company based in the United Kingdom. It is active worldwide in beverage can manufacturing, with production facilities in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Rexam is the second largest beverage cans manufacturer worldwide and the largest beverage can manufacturer in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Rexam PLC (‘Rexam’) is a company based in the United Kingdom. It is active worldwide in beverage can manufacturing, with production facilities in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Rexam is the second largest beverage cans manufacturer worldwide and the largest beverage can manufacturer in the EEA.

II.   THE OPERATION

| (3) | On 15 June 2015, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Ball is to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Rexam (the ‘Transaction’). Ball is referred to as the ‘Notifying Party’. Ball and Rexam are jointly referred to as the ‘Parties’. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 15 June 2015, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Ball is to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Rexam (the ‘Transaction’). Ball is referred to as the ‘Notifying Party’. Ball and Rexam are jointly referred to as the ‘Parties’.

III.   EU DIMENSION

| (4) | The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million (2). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million, and they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The Transaction therefore has a Union dimension. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million (2). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million, and they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The Transaction therefore has a Union dimension.

IV.   THE PROCEDURE

| (5) | On 20 July 2015, the Commission found that the Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement and adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. The serious doubts were raised in relation to beverage cans, as well as aluminium bottles. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 20 July 2015, the Commission found that the Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement and adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. The serious doubts were raised in relation to beverage cans, as well as aluminium bottles.

| (6) | On 29 September 2015, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation. The Notifying Party replied to the SO on 13 October 2015. On 23 October 2015, a formal State of Play meeting took place. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 29 September 2015, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation. The Notifying Party replied to the SO on 13 October 2015. On 23 October 2015, a formal State of Play meeting took place.

| (7) | On 18 November 2015, the Notifying Party submitted commitments in order to address the competition concerns identified in the SO (the ‘Commitments of 18 November 2015’). Consequently, the period for the adoption of a final Decision was extended by 15 working days pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 18 November 2015, the Notifying Party submitted commitments in order to address the competition concerns identified in the SO (the ‘Commitments of 18 November 2015’). Consequently, the period for the adoption of a final Decision was extended by 15 working days pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation.

| (8) | On 20 November 2015, the Commission launched a market test of the Commitments of 18 November 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 20 November 2015, the Commission launched a market test of the Commitments of 18 November 2015.

| (9) | On 3 December 2015, the Notifying Party submitted a final set of commitments (‘the Final Commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On 3 December 2015, the Notifying Party submitted a final set of commitments (‘the Final Commitments’).

V.   THE RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS

Beverage cans

| (10) | The Commission concluded that (i) beverage cans constitute a separate market from other forms of beverage packaging solutions such as glass, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cartons, (ii) can bodies and can ends belong to the same relevant market, irrespective of whether they are made out of steel or aluminium, and (iii) various can sizes and can types belong to the same market even though they constitute differentiated products within this market. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission concluded that (i) beverage cans constitute a separate market from other forms of beverage packaging solutions such as glass, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cartons, (ii) can bodies and can ends belong to the same relevant market, irrespective of whether they are made out of steel or aluminium, and (iii) various can sizes and can types belong to the same market even though they constitute differentiated products within this market.

Aluminium bottles

| (11) | The Commission found that aluminium bottles and beverage cans belong to separate markets. Furthermore, the Commission noted that depending on the production technology employed, aluminium bottles can be distinguished between IE bottles and DWI bottles. However, the Commission left the exact product market definition open. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Commission found that aluminium bottles and beverage cans belong to separate markets. Furthermore, the Commission noted that depending on the production technology employed, aluminium bottles can be distinguished between IE bottles and DWI bottles. However, the Commission left the exact product market definition open.

VI.   THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

Beverage cans

| (12) | The Commission’s starting point was a catchment area with a radius of 700 km around each customer filling location. The Commission then concluded that the catchment areas around individual customer filling locations can be clustered together in broader geographic areas where these catchment areas are subject to sufficiently homogeneous competitive conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The Commission’s starting point was a catchment area with a radius of 700 km around each customer filling location. The Commission then concluded that the catchment areas around individual customer filling locations can be clustered together in broader geographic areas where these catchment areas are subject to sufficiently homogeneous competitive conditions.

| (13) | The Commission considers that competitive conditions are sufficiently homogenous for customer filling locations located in the following regions: Central Europe (Austria and Germany), Benelux, France, Italy, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), North East Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), South East Europe (Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus), the Nordics (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland) and the UK and Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Commission considers that competitive conditions are sufficiently homogenous for customer filling locations located in the following regions: Central Europe (Austria and Germany), Benelux, France, Italy, Iberia (Spain and Portugal), North East Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia), South East Europe (Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus), the Nordics (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland) and the UK and Ireland.

Aluminium bottles

| (14) | The Commission left open the geographic market definition for aluminium bottles since the proposed Transaction does not significantly impede effective competition under any of the plausible alternative geographic market definitions. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Commission left open the geographic market definition for aluminium bottles since the proposed Transaction does not significantly impede effective competition under any of the plausible alternative geographic market definitions.

VII.   COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

Beverage cans

| (15) | Rexam and Ball are the two largest players in the EEA. At the EEA-level, the merged entity would have a large dominant position post-Transaction with [60-70] % of sales volumes and [60-70] % of the capacity. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Rexam and Ball are the two largest players in the EEA. At the EEA-level, the merged entity would have a large dominant position post-Transaction with [60-70] % of sales volumes and [60-70] % of the capacity.

| (16) | The beverage can industry is already very concentrated and not highly competitive with essentially only the Parties, Crown and Can-Pack active in the EEA. The Transaction would further reduce the number of players in the EEA from 4 to 3. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The beverage can industry is already very concentrated and not highly competitive with essentially only the Parties, Crown and Can-Pack active in the EEA. The Transaction would further reduce the number of players in the EEA from 4 to 3.

| (17) | Post-Transaction, Crown and Can-Pack would be unable to compete on an equal footing with the merged entity because of their much smaller size and footprint. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Post-Transaction, Crown and Can-Pack would be unable to compete on an equal footing with the merged entity because of their much smaller size and footprint.

| (18) | The Transaction would eliminate a competitive force from an innovation point of view. Market participants consider the Parties as the main innovators in the EEA while Crown and Can-Pack lag behind. The Parties could have less incentive to innovate post-merger. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Transaction would eliminate a competitive force from an innovation point of view. Market participants consider the Parties as the main innovators in the EEA while Crown and Can-Pack lag behind. The Parties could have less incentive to innovate post-merger.

| (19) | Capacity is very tight in the EEA with a utilization rate generally above 90 %. Overall spare capacity in 2014 of competitors for plants located in the EEA was equivalent to between 5 to 10 % of the combined sales of the Parties to EEA customers in 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Capacity is very tight in the EEA with a utilization rate generally above 90 %. Overall spare capacity in 2014 of competitors for plants located in the EEA was equivalent to between 5 to 10 % of the combined sales of the Parties to EEA customers in 2014.

| (20) | The possibility to switch to other forms of packaging would also not impose a sufficient competitive pressure on the merged entity and on prices. Customers’ choice of packaging mix is mostly determined by end-consumer needs and not primarily price driven. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The possibility to switch to other forms of packaging would also not impose a sufficient competitive pressure on the merged entity and on prices. Customers’ choice of packaging mix is mostly determined by end-consumer needs and not primarily price driven.

| (21) | Customers, even the largest ones, have limited countervailing buyer power during negotiations. In particular the scale and footprint of the Parties and the tightness of the overall capacity reduce customers’ market power. The investigation also showed that in Europe self-supply is not a viable solution from an economic point of view. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Customers, even the largest ones, have limited countervailing buyer power during negotiations. In particular the scale and footprint of the Parties and the tightness of the overall capacity reduce customers’ market power. The investigation also showed that in Europe self-supply is not a viable solution from an economic point of view.

| (22) | Barriers to entry and expansion are high. Building a plant requires time, expertise and know-how as well as large volume long-term commitments from customers. Investments to build a one-line plant are comprised between EUR 50-100 million In order to be efficient, a plant generally needs at least two production lines which should be fully utilised. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Barriers to entry and expansion are high. Building a plant requires time, expertise and know-how as well as large volume long-term commitments from customers. Investments to build a one-line plant are comprised between EUR 50-100 million In order to be efficient, a plant generally needs at least two production lines which should be fully utilised.

| (23) | The Transaction would, at best, represent a 4 to 3 merger and result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the following regional clusters: Benelux, Central Europe, France, Italy, North-East Europe and South-East Europe. In the Nordics, the Transaction would mainly consist in a 3 to 2 merger. The transaction would result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position also in Iberia and the UK and Ireland. The Parties’ combined capacity share would range from [40-50] % to [90-100] % with increments between [5-10] % and [30-40] %. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Transaction would, at best, represent a 4 to 3 merger and result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the following regional clusters: Benelux, Central Europe, France, Italy, North-East Europe and South-East Europe. In the Nordics, the Transaction would mainly consist in a 3 to 2 merger. The transaction would result in the creation or strengthening of a dominant position also in Iberia and the UK and Ireland. The Parties’ combined capacity share would range from [40-50] % to [90-100] % with increments between [5-10] % and [30-40] %.

| (24) | Therefore the Commission reached the conclusion that the Transaction would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition for the beverage can market in all the regional clusters. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Therefore the Commission reached the conclusion that the Transaction would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition for the beverage can market in all the regional clusters.

Aluminium bottles

| (25) | The Commission reached the conclusion that the Transaction is unlikely to lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in relation to aluminium bottles. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission reached the conclusion that the Transaction is unlikely to lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in relation to aluminium bottles.

VIII.   COMMITMENTS

| (26) | In order to render the Transaction compatible with the internal market, the Notifying Party submitted the Commitments of 18 November 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

In order to render the Transaction compatible with the internal market, the Notifying Party submitted the Commitments of 18 November 2015.

| (27) | The Notifying Party proposed to divest its entire Metal Beverage Packaging, Europe segment save for certain excluded entities, assets and personnel as listed in the Commitments of 18 November 2015 (the exclusions mainly related to certain holding companies, three Ball can body plants, some key personnel and IP in pipeline products). In addition, the Notifying Party proposed to divest two Rexam can body plants. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The Notifying Party proposed to divest its entire Metal Beverage Packaging, Europe segment save for certain excluded entities, assets and personnel as listed in the Commitments of 18 November 2015 (the exclusions mainly related to certain holding companies, three Ball can body plants, some key personnel and IP in pipeline products). In addition, the Notifying Party proposed to divest two Rexam can body plants.

| (28) | The assets to be divested pursuant to the Commitments of 18 November 2015 mainly comprised the following: Ball’s production facilities in the UK (Rugby and Wrexham), Central Europe (Weissenthurm, Hassloch and Hermsdorf) and Benelux (Oss), as well as one of Ball’s production facilities in France (La Ciotat), Rexam’s production facility in Austria (Enzesfeld) and one of Rexam’s production facilities in Spain (Valdemorillo), Ball’s Business and Technical Centre in Bonn and, at the purchaser’s option, Ball’s European headquarters in Zurich, Ball’s can-ends production facilities at Braunschweig and Deeside (with the exception of one production module). |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The assets to be divested pursuant to the Commitments of 18 November 2015 mainly comprised the following: Ball’s production facilities in the UK (Rugby and Wrexham), Central Europe (Weissenthurm, Hassloch and Hermsdorf) and Benelux (Oss), as well as one of Ball’s production facilities in France (La Ciotat), Rexam’s production facility in Austria (Enzesfeld) and one of Rexam’s production facilities in Spain (Valdemorillo), Ball’s Business and Technical Centre in Bonn and, at the purchaser’s option, Ball’s European headquarters in Zurich, Ball’s can-ends production facilities at Braunschweig and Deeside (with the exception of one production module).

| (29) | The proposed divestment package included the transfer of legal entities, personnel, customer contracts, supplier contracts, intellectual property, etc., subject to several exclusions. It also included an upfront buyer clause and envisaged the divestment business being sold to a single buyer. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The proposed divestment package included the transfer of legal entities, personnel, customer contracts, supplier contracts, intellectual property, etc., subject to several exclusions. It also included an upfront buyer clause and envisaged the divestment business being sold to a single buyer.

| (30) | The Commission found that the Commitments of 18 November 2015 failed to address the elimination of increased competition in the North-East Europe cluster. Absent the merger, it is likely that Rexam would have increased capacity in the region and consequently reduced market concentration. Significant concentration effects for a sub-set of customers in the Central Europe cluster also remained. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The Commission found that the Commitments of 18 November 2015 failed to address the elimination of increased competition in the North-East Europe cluster. Absent the merger, it is likely that Rexam would have increased capacity in the region and consequently reduced market concentration. Significant concentration effects for a sub-set of customers in the Central Europe cluster also remained.

| (31) | As regards the viability and competitiveness of the divestment business, the Commission noted that the Notifying Party had excluded a large number of key personnel (notably management, R & D, sales and other personnel) from the scope of the Commitments of 18 November 2015. However, because the divestment business would have consisted in a very large network of plants across the EEA, resulting in a combination of assets of both Parties, and operating in a highly concentrated and capacity-constrained industry, the Commission considered that a high degree of continuity of key staff would be crucial for the divestment business’ ability to serve its customers and compete effectively in the market immediately after the divestiture. In addition, it appeared unlikely that there would be sufficient justification to carve-out all the listed personnel and there could be concerns regarding the degree of competition post-Transaction between the merged entity and the new entrant if all of these personnel would stay with the merged entity. The market test also highlighted these issues. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

As regards the viability and competitiveness of the divestment business, the Commission noted that the Notifying Party had excluded a large number of key personnel (notably management, R & D, sales and other personnel) from the scope of the Commitments of 18 November 2015. However, because the divestment business would have consisted in a very large network of plants across the EEA, resulting in a combination of assets of both Parties, and operating in a highly concentrated and capacity-constrained industry, the Commission considered that a high degree of continuity of key staff would be crucial for the divestment business’ ability to serve its customers and compete effectively in the market immediately after the divestiture. In addition, it appeared unlikely that there would be sufficient justification to carve-out all the listed personnel and there could be concerns regarding the degree of competition post-Transaction between the merged entity and the new entrant if all of these personnel would stay with the merged entity. The market test also highlighted these issues.

| (32) | The Commission therefore concluded that the Commitments of 18 November 2015 were incapable of rendering the Transaction compatible with the internal market, in particular since they would not fully remove the significant impediment to effective competition identified by the Commission in the North-East Europe cluster, and did not sufficiently ensure the viability of the divestment business. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The Commission therefore concluded that the Commitments of 18 November 2015 were incapable of rendering the Transaction compatible with the internal market, in particular since they would not fully remove the significant impediment to effective competition identified by the Commission in the North-East Europe cluster, and did not sufficiently ensure the viability of the divestment business.

| (33) | The Notifying Party submitted the Final Commitments on 3 December 2015 to address the Commission’s remaining concerns. In particular, it added to the package Ball’s plant in Radomsko, Poland, as well as further personnel, including management, R & D and sales staff. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The Notifying Party submitted the Final Commitments on 3 December 2015 to address the Commission’s remaining concerns. In particular, it added to the package Ball’s plant in Radomsko, Poland, as well as further personnel, including management, R & D and sales staff.

| (34) | The Commission considered that through the inclusion of Radomsko, its concerns relating to the North-East Europe regional cluster, in particular those resulting from the elimination of capacity expansion, will be remedied. Moreover, the addition of Radomsko also reduces the significant concentration effects that a sub-set of customers in the Central Europe cluster still faced. The Commission therefore concluded that the Final Commitments remove its competition concerns in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

The Commission considered that through the inclusion of Radomsko, its concerns relating to the North-East Europe regional cluster, in particular those resulting from the elimination of capacity expansion, will be remedied. Moreover, the addition of Radomsko also reduces the significant concentration effects that a sub-set of customers in the Central Europe cluster still faced. The Commission therefore concluded that the Final Commitments remove its competition concerns in their entirety.

| (35) | As regards the Commission’s concerns with respect to the viability and competitiveness of the divestment business, the addition of further management, R & D and sales staff, together with the single purchaser and upfront buyer clause should ensure that the business can be sold as a going concern. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

As regards the Commission’s concerns with respect to the viability and competitiveness of the divestment business, the addition of further management, R & D and sales staff, together with the single purchaser and upfront buyer clause should ensure that the business can be sold as a going concern.

| (36) | For these reasons, the Commission considered that the Final Commitments are suitable and sufficient to eliminate the competition concerns raised by the Transaction and render it compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

For these reasons, the Commission considered that the Final Commitments are suitable and sufficient to eliminate the competition concerns raised by the Transaction and render it compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement.

IX.   CONCLUSION

| (37) | For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

| (38) | Consequently the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

Consequently the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Merger Regulation and the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (OJ C 95, 16.4.2008, p. 1).

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/11

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 107/06)

| Member State | Spain |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned routes | Gran Canaria — Tenerife Sur
  Gran Canaria — El Hierro
  Tenerife Norte — La Gomera
  Gran Canaria — La Gomera |
| Period of validity of the contract | 2 years following the start of the operations |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 2 months following the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Ministerio de Fomento |
| Dirección General de Aviación Civil |
| Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo |
| Paseo de la Castellana 67 |
| 28071 Madrid |
| España |
| Tel. +34 915977505 |
| Fax +34 915978643 |
| Email: osp.dgac@fomento.es |

Member State

Spain

Concerned routes

Gran Canaria — Tenerife Sur

Gran Canaria — El Hierro

Tenerife Norte — La Gomera

Gran Canaria — La Gomera

Period of validity of the contract

2 years following the start of the operations

Deadline for submission of tenders

2 months following the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Ministerio de Fomento

Dirección General de Aviación Civil

Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo

Paseo de la Castellana 67

28071 Madrid

España

Tel. +34 915977505

Fax +34 915978643

Email: osp.dgac@fomento.es

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 22.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/12

---

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

(2016/C 107/07)

This publication confers the right to oppose the application pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1).

This publication replaces the Single Document published in Official Journal C 6 of 9 January 2016.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘FLÖNZ’

EU No: DE-PGI-0005-01257 — 26.8.2014

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

1.   Name

‘Flönz’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Member State or Third Country

Germany

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Type of product

Class 1.2 Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

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

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

‘Flönz’ is a blood sausage made using traditional methods. It belongs to the group of cooked sausages and within that the blood sausage group. It is a blood sausage of ‘simple quality’, which means it contains pork, although the pork content is not visible. The sausage meat is packed in natural or synthetic casings. The sausages are between 30 mm and 65 mm in diameter. When presented for sale in natural or synthetic casings, the sausages have a circular cross-section and their shape is a curved cylinder with typical sausage ends. They can also be formed into a ring. The sausage mixture is red-brown in colour interspersed with the white of the pieces of pork fat. The sausage is also red-brown on the outside.

The sausage is soft in consistency, but easy to slice. The product is available either fresh or smoked.

The sausage is marketed in sealed containers, in skins whole or in pieces, and also sliced as a convenience product (vacuum packed or suchlike). ‘Flönz’ is not available in glass jars, tins or other containers.

‘Flönz’ must contain pieces of pork fat which are clearly visible. The pork fat must not exceed 25 % to 30 % of the weight. The pieces of pork fat are between 5 mm and 10 mm in diameter. The fat content of fresh ‘Flönz’ is between 25 % and 35 %; the value for MPFCP (meat protein free of connective-tissue protein) must not be below 8 %.

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

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

Ingredients:

| — | fresh bacon rind |
| --- | --- |

—

fresh bacon rind

| — | fresh or frozen (thawed) pork fat |
| --- | --- |

—

fresh or frozen (thawed) pork fat

| — | pigmeat |
| --- | --- |

—

pigmeat

| — | pig’s head meat (optional) |
| --- | --- |

—

pig’s head meat (optional)

| — | pig’s blood |
| --- | --- |

—

pig’s blood

| — | nitrate salting mix |
| --- | --- |

—

nitrate salting mix

| — | herbs and spices (only natural herbs and spices, no added flavourings, no spice extracts) |
| --- | --- |

—

herbs and spices (only natural herbs and spices, no added flavourings, no spice extracts)

| — | onions (optional) |
| --- | --- |

—

onions (optional)

| — | meat stock (optional) |
| --- | --- |

—

meat stock (optional)

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

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

All steps in production must take place in the identified geographical area to ensure the quality of the traditional product.

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

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

—

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

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

—

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Concise definition of the geographical area

The production area is located in the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia, namely the area covered by the city of Cologne, the cities of Leverkusen, Bergisch Gladbach, Rösrath, Wesseling, Brühl, Hürth, Frechen, Pulheim, Bonn, Neuss, Dormagen, Monheim, Ratingen and Düsseldorf and the district of Rhein-Sieg-Kreis.

5.   Link with the geographical area

Link with the geographical area

Specificity of the geographical area

Specificity of the geographical area

Cologne is the largest city in the production area and is situated approximately in its geographical centre. Cologne, along with the next largest cities of Düsseldorf and Bonn and almost all the other regional authorities in the region, is located on the Rhine. ‘Flönz’ is an important element of the particularly intensive carnival celebrations throughout the production area. The Cologne and Düsseldorf carnivals are the most famous, but in the other areas, too, the carnival is a focal point of the year and extremely important for every local community. Traditional products are a feature of the festivities. This includes ‘Flönz’, a product which unites even those occasionally light-hearted rivals, Cologne and Düsseldorf, in a shared culinary tradition.

Specificity of the product

Specificity of the product

The special reputation of ‘Flönz’ is due to the fact that the name and the food symbolise the identity and uniqueness of the production area. ‘Flönz’ is meant to be eaten as a fresh, soft sausage. In this respect, it differs especially from blood sausages in southern Germany, which are often available in a dried, hard form as a long-life product. For reasons of quality, only fresh or frozen, but not preserved, pig fat can be used. This is because fresh or frozen pig fat makes it more difficult for oxidation to occur which, after a lengthy storage period, produces a rancid odour and flavour. The use of fresh or frozen pork fat is a feature that is objectively typical of the area and also results from the tradition of this type of production in the area.

The special reputation of ‘Flönz’ is based on its production in the geographical area. It is demonstrated by the fact that the name and the food symbolise the identity and uniqueness of the production area. ‘Flönz’ is the main ingredient of one of the traditional dishes, ‘Kölsch Kaviar’ (Cologne caviar), that appears on every brewery menu in Cologne. It is not caviar, but ‘Flönz’ with onion rings. ‘Himmel und Äd’ (Heaven and Earth) is roasted ‘Flönz’ with apple compote and mashed potato. Published works emphasise the importance of ‘Flönz’ in the cuisine of Cologne:

| | Franz Mathar and Rudolf Spiegel, Kölsche Bier- und Brauhäuser, Cologne, 1989; |
| --- | --- |

Franz Mathar and Rudolf Spiegel, Kölsche Bier- und Brauhäuser, Cologne, 1989;

| | Peter Honnen, Kappes, Knies und Klüngel, Cologne, 2003; |
| --- | --- |

Peter Honnen, Kappes, Knies und Klüngel, Cologne, 2003;

| | Berthold Heizmann, Von Apfelkraut bis Zimtschnecke, Cologne, 2011; |
| --- | --- |

Berthold Heizmann, Von Apfelkraut bis Zimtschnecke, Cologne, 2011;

| | Gerard Schmidt and Joachim Römer, Kölsch Kaviar un Ähzezupp, Cologne, 1990 |
| --- | --- |

Gerard Schmidt and Joachim Römer, Kölsch Kaviar un Ähzezupp, Cologne, 1990

Causal link

Causal link

The reputation of ‘Flönz’ and its connection with the geographical area have grown organically throughout its long history. The term ‘Flönz’ was already in use in Cologne at the end of the 19th century (Wrede, Neuer Kölnischer Sprachenschatz, Cologne 1956: 235).

In 1947, the lyricist Jupp Schlösser and the composer Dr Gerhard Jussenhoven made a joke about how hard it was for the migrants to pronounce words properly in the Cologne dialect. They used the example of the ‘O’ sound which made it difficult to say ‘Blotwoosch’ (Blutwurst) (blood sausage) and they suggested the synonym ‘Flönz’. In their song, ‘Sag’ ens Blotwoosch’ (‘Just say blood sausage’) it goes:

‘... Sag’ ens Blotwoosch... (Just say Blotwoosch (blood sausage))

Wäm dat Woot es zo schwer. (If the word’s too hard)

Dä säht einfach Flönz...’ (Just say Flönz...)

Toni Steingass followed in 1980 with his song ‘Bunnefitschmaschinche’ (‘Green Bean Machine’):

‘...Wä en Kölle uze well, (If in Cologne you wish to tease,)

da säht statt Blodwoosch Flönz, (Don’t say Blotwoosch, say Flönz,)

Un wä dat nit sage kann, (If this word you cannot say,)

dä stammp us der Provönz!...’ (Then you must be provincial!)

More recently, Gerd Köster and Frank Hocker’s 1996 song, ‘Buure Säu’ (‘Country Folk’):

‘...De Haupsaach es, de Flönz es god. (The main thing is the Flönz is good.)

Alles andre es zo kompliziert...’ (Everything else is too complicated.)

In 2011, Peter Millowitsch staged the play titled ‘For a Handful of Flönz’ in his theatre in Cologne and at around the same time – in the 2011/12 carnival season – the Cologne Stunksitzung (radical theatre) chose as its central theme, ‘Kölsch gibt es nur gegen Flönz. Euro Flönz’ (‘Kölsch (local beer) only with Flönz. Euro Flönz’).

The term ‘Flönz’ is used in many social settings to emphasise the special connection between an event or association and the Cologne home region: one of Cologne’s basketball teams is called ‘Flying Flönz I’. The Cologne Yacht Club competes in the annual ‘Royal Flönz Cup’. The 2012 first vintage car excursion of the Ahl Häre KG (Carnival Society) in Pulheim was called the ‘Tour de Flönz’.

Reference to publication of the product specification

Reference to publication of the product specification

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

https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/geo/detail.pdfdownload/41118

---

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

1

---