# Official Journal C 81/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 81 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6410 March 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 81

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6410 March 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 81/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8982 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/PSPIB/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 81/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8958 — DV4/ABP/OMERS/Real Estate JV) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2021/C 81/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9285 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Oignies Site) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2021/C 81/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9161 — Brookfield/M Finance Capital/ECLA Paris Massy-Palaiseau Companies) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2021/C 81/05 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10044 — Mississippi Ventures/Parcom/Hema) (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 81/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8982 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/PSPIB/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 81/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8958 — DV4/ABP/OMERS/Real Estate JV) (
  1
  )

1

2

2021/C 81/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9285 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Oignies Site) (
  1
  )

1

3

2021/C 81/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9161 — Brookfield/M Finance Capital/ECLA Paris Massy-Palaiseau Companies) (
  1
  )

1

4

2021/C 81/05

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10044 — Mississippi Ventures/Parcom/Hema) (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 81/06 | Euro exchange rates — 9 March 2021 | 6 |
| 2021/C 81/07 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 September 2020 at 10.30-13.00 (CEST) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.40608 – Broadcom – Rapporteur: Lithuania (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2021/C 81/08 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Case AT.40608 Broadcom – Commitments (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2021/C 81/09 | Summary of Commission Decision of 7 October 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom)
  (notified under document C(2020) 6765)

   (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2021/C 81/10 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40608 – Broadcom – Rapporteur: Lithuania (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2021/C 81/11 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Broadcom – Interim Measures Procedure (Case AT.40608) (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| 2021/C 81/12 | Summary of Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom)
  (notified under document C(2019) 7406)

   (
  1
  ) | 23 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2021/C 81/13 | Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 27 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 81/06

Euro exchange rates — 9 March 2021

6

2021/C 81/07

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 September 2020 at 10.30-13.00 (CEST) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.40608 – Broadcom – Rapporteur: Lithuania (
  1
  )

1

7

2021/C 81/08

Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Case AT.40608 Broadcom – Commitments (
  1
  )

1

8

2021/C 81/09

Summary of Commission Decision of 7 October 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom)
  (notified under document C(2020) 6765)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2020) 6765)

1

9

2021/C 81/10

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40608 – Broadcom – Rapporteur: Lithuania (
  1
  )

1

12

2021/C 81/11

Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Broadcom – Interim Measures Procedure (Case AT.40608) (
  1
  )

1

13

2021/C 81/12

Summary of Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom)
  (notified under document C(2019) 7406)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2019) 7406)

1

23

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2021/C 81/13

Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

27

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 81/14 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 29 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2021/C 81/14

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

29

---

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

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8982 — Ivanhoe Cambridge/PSPIB/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/01)

On 30 August 2018, 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 32018M8982. 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 32018M8982. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8958 — DV4/ABP/OMERS/Real Estate JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/02)

On 12 September 2018, 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 32018M8958. 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 32018M8958. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9285 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Oignies Site)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/03)

On 20 March 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9285. 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 32019M9285. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9161 — Brookfield/M Finance Capital/ECLA Paris Massy-Palaiseau Companies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/04)

On 16 November 2018, 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 32018M9161. 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 32018M9161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10044 — Mississippi Ventures/Parcom/Hema)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/05)

On 27 January 2021, 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 32021M10044. 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 32021M10044. 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

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 March 2021

(2021/C 81/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1894 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,50 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4366 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85704 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1360 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1071 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,75 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0838 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,288 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 366,83 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5843 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8870 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,1023 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5440 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4990 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2325 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6607 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6011 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 353,91 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,3128 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7478 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5913 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 140,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8974 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,724 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 87,9711 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,597 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,9553 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 25,3635 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,8270 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1894

JPY

Japanese yen

129,50

DKK

Danish krone

7,4366

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85704

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1360

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1071

ISK

Iceland króna

151,75

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0838

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,288

HUF

Hungarian forint

366,83

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5843

RON

Romanian leu

4,8870

TRY

Turkish lira

9,1023

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5440

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4990

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2325

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6607

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6011

KRW

South Korean won

1 353,91

ZAR

South African rand

18,3128

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7478

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5913

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 140,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8974

PHP

Philippine peso

57,724

RUB

Russian rouble

87,9711

THB

Thai baht

36,597

BRL

Brazilian real

6,9553

MXN

Mexican peso

25,3635

INR

Indian rupee

86,8270

---

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

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/7

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 September 2020 at 10.30-13.00 (CEST (1)) concerning a draft decision concerning Case AT.40608 – Broadcom

Rapporteur: Lithuania

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/07)

(1)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its draft Decision under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 7 September 2020.

(2)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as described in the draft Decision.

(3)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the offered final commitments are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding, as set out in the draft Decision.

(4)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision that, in light of the offered commitments, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission as regards the concerns as set out in the draft Decision, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

(5)

The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

(1)  Central European Summer Time (i.e. Brussels time).

1

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/8

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40608 Broadcom – Commitments

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/08)

The present report relates to a draft commitments decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) (the ‘Draft Decision’) addressed to Broadcom Inc. (‘Broadcom’).

In the same Case AT.40608 the Commission already adopted, on 16 October 2019, a decision pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 imposing interim measures on Broadcom (the ‘Interim Measures Decision’). (3) In my Final Report of 8 October 2019, I already concluded that the effective exercise of procedural rights had been respected in the interim measures procedure. (4)

On 1 April 2020, Broadcom proposed commitments (the ‘Initial Commitments’) in order to meet the concerns expressed in the Interim Measures Decision as well as some further concerns expressed in the statement of objections of 26 June 2019 preceding the Interim Measures Decision, the combination of which constitutes the preliminary assessment for the purposes of the Draft Decision.

On 30 April 2020, the Commission published a notice in accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, inviting comments from interested third parties on the Initial Commitments.

On 29 June 2020, the Commission informed Broadcom of the observations received.

On 31 July 2020, Broadcom submitted amended commitments in response to the comments received (the ‘Final Commitments’).

The Draft Decision makes the Final Commitments binding upon Broadcom for seven years and concludes that there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission in this case as regards the concerns as set out in the preliminary assessment.

I have not received any request or complaint with respect to the commitments procedure.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in this case.

Wouter WILS

---

(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 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1) (‘Regulation 1/2003’).

2

(3)  Commission Decision of 16 October 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Case AT.40608 – Broadcom), C(2019) 7406 final.

3

(4)  Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Broadcom – Interim Measures Procedure (AT.40608) of 8 October 2019.

4

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/9

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 7 October 2020

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.40608 – Broadcom)

(notified under document C(2020) 6765)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/09)

On 7 Otober 2020, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1)
  , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The Decision makes binding the commitments offered by Broadcom Inc. (‘Broadcom’) to meet the Commission’s concerns as expressed in its preliminary assessment, pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

2.   PROCEDURE

| (2) | On 26 June 2019, the Commission opened proceedings with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. On the same day, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) addressed to Broadcom outlining the Commission’s preliminary conclusions as regards the need to impose interim measures, pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, relating to specific aspects of Broadcom’s behaviour that was subject to the Commission’s investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | On 16 October 2019, the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘interim measures Decision’), which set out its conclusions as regards the existence of a prima facie infringement of competition rules and the need to impose interim measures due to the risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition brought about by Broadcom’s conduct. The interim measures Decision ordered Broadcom to unilaterally cease to apply with immediate effect certain exclusivity-inducing provisions contained in agreements with six of its customers. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | On 1 April 2020, Broadcom submitted initial commitments (‘the Initial Commitments’) to the Commission in response to the concerns that were outlined in the SO and the interim measures Decision. On 30 April 2020, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (the ‘Market Test’), summarising the case and the Initial Commitments and inviting interested third parties to provide their observations on the Initial Commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

| (5) | On 29 June 2020, the Commission informed Broadcom of the observations received from interested third parties following the publication of the notice. On 31 July 2020, Broadcom submitted an amended proposal for commitments (‘the Final Commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | On 21 September 2020 the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted and issued a favourable opinion. On the same day, the Hearing Officer issued his final report. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

3.   PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

3.1.   Relevant products and markets

| (7) | The Decision concerns certain types of integrated circuits (‘ICs’) incorporated into network access equipment that is installed at customer premises (so-called customer premises equipment, ‘CPE’). More specifically, the products concerned are: (i) Systems-on-a-chip (‘SoCs’); (ii) Front-end chips (‘FE chips’); and (iii) WiFi chipsets for incorporation into set-top boxes (‘STBs’) and residential gateways. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | In its preliminary assessment, the Commission concluded that, prima facie, there are separate worldwide markets for: (i) STB SoCs; (ii) SoCs for fibre residential gateways; (iii) SoCs for xDSL residential gateways; and (iv) SoCs for cable residential gateways. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

3.2.   Dominance

| (9) | In its preliminary assessment, the Commission concluded that, prima facie, Broadcom holds a dominant position in the worldwide markets for the following products: (i) STB SoCs; (ii) SoCs for xDSL residential gateways; and (iii) SoCs for fibre residential gateways. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

3.3.   Practices raising concerns

| (10) | In its preliminary assessment, the Commission took the view that, prima facie, Broadcom’s conduct breached Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘Treaty’) and Article 54 of the EEA agreement by entering into agreements containing exclusivity-inducing contractual conditions with six large original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’), who source SoCs and other products from Broadcom for incorporation into STBs and/or residential gateways. These exclusivity-inducing provisions can be grouped into two different types of potential restrictions of competition: (i) exclusivity and quasi-exclusivity arrangements; and (ii) leveraging restrictions. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | As to the first type of restriction, the Commission took the preliminary view that, prima facie, Broadcom entered into agreements containing obligations or promises from OEMs to obtain products in which Broadcom is prima facie dominant exclusively or almost exclusively from Broadcom. In addition, the Commission prima facie considered that Broadcom entered into agreements containing provisions that make the granting of certain advantages conditional on the customer obtaining products in which Broadcom is prima facie dominant exclusively or almost exclusively from Broadcom. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | As to the second type of restriction, the Commission’s preliminary assessment concluded that, prima facie, Broadcom entered into agreements containing provisions that could leverage Broadcom’s market power from one or more product markets to one or more adjacent but separate product markets. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | In its preliminary assessment, the Commission took the view that, prima facie, Broadcom’s exclusivity-inducing provisions are capable of affecting competition, and that Broadcom has not provided sufficient evidence that its conduct is counterbalanced or outweighed by advantages in terms of efficiencies that also benefit the consumer: Moreover, the Commission took the view that Broadcom’s conduct is prima facie capable of affecting the pattern of trade in goods between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

4.   COMMITMENTS

4.1.   Initial Commitments

| (14) | While Broadcom disagrees with the Commission’s preliminary assessment, it has nevertheless offered the following Initial Commitments pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in order to meet the Commission’s competition concerns. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | At worldwide level (excluding China), Broadcom offered, for a period of five years:






  (a) | Not to require or induce by means of certain type of advantages an OEM to obtain more than 50 % of its requirements for SoCs for STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways from Broadcom; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(15)

(a)

Not to require or induce by means of certain type of advantages an OEM to obtain more than 50 % of its requirements for SoCs for STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways from Broadcom; and

| (b) | Not to condition the supply of, or the granting of advantages for, SoCs for TV STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways on an OEM obtaining from Broadcom more than 50 % of its requirements for any other of these products, or for other products which were within the scope of the interim measures SO or Decision (i.e. SoCs for cable residential gateways, FE chips for STBs and residential gateways and/or Wi-Fi chipsets for STBs and residential gateways). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Not to condition the supply of, or the granting of advantages for, SoCs for TV STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways on an OEM obtaining from Broadcom more than 50 % of its requirements for any other of these products, or for other products which were within the scope of the interim measures SO or Decision (i.e. SoCs for cable residential gateways, FE chips for STBs and residential gateways and/or Wi-Fi chipsets for STBs and residential gateways).

| (16) | At EEA level, Broadcom offered, for a period of five years:






  (a) | Not to require or induce by means of certain type of advantages an OEM to obtain more than 50 % of its EEA requirements for SoCs for STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways from Broadcom; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(16)

(a)

Not to require or induce by means of certain type of advantages an OEM to obtain more than 50 % of its EEA requirements for SoCs for STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways from Broadcom; and

| (b) | Not to condition the supply of, or the granting of advantages for, SoCs for STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways on an OEM obtaining from Broadcom another of these products or any other product within the scope of the interim measures SO or Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Not to condition the supply of, or the granting of advantages for, SoCs for STB, xDSL residential gateways and fibre residential gateways on an OEM obtaining from Broadcom another of these products or any other product within the scope of the interim measures SO or Decision.

| (17) | The Initial Commitments included additional provisions with regard to obligations and inducements to bid equipment based on Broadcom products as well as certain commitments with regard to service providers in the EEA. They also prevented Broadcom from circumventing or attempting to circumvent the commitments in any way. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

4.2.   Revised commitments in light of the Market Test

| (18) | In response to observations received from interested third parties during the Market Test, Broadcom modified the Initial Commitments and submitted the Final Commitments on 31 July 2020. The Final Commitments modified the Initial Commitments in a number of aspects, in particular:






  (a) | The 50 % threshold of the Initial Commitments is removed in the EEA with respect to OEMs and service providers; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(18)

(a)

The 50 % threshold of the Initial Commitments is removed in the EEA with respect to OEMs and service providers;

| (b) | The duration of the commitments is extended to seven years; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The duration of the commitments is extended to seven years;

| (c) | The reporting obligations incumbent on Broadcom are reinforced; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The reporting obligations incumbent on Broadcom are reinforced;

| (d) | The non-circumvention clause is complemented by a separate commitment concerning interoperability. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

The non-circumvention clause is complemented by a separate commitment concerning interoperability.

5.   CONCLUSION

| (19) | The Final Commitments adequately respond to the concerns expressed in the Commission’s preliminary assessment and to the concerns raised by respondents to the Market Test. In particular, they ensure that Broadcom will suspend any agreements which, according to the Commission’s preliminary assessment, may have an exclusivity-inducing effect and therefore may be in violation of Article 102 of the Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA agreement, and refrain from entering into equivalent agreements for a period of seven years. With regard to the EEA, the Final Commitments prevent Broadcom from making the supply of relevant products or the granting of non-price advantages or retroactive price advantages related to the relevant products conditional on an OEM obtaining any minimum percentage of its requirements for that relevant product, another relevant product or other product from Broadcom, with equivalent limitations applying to Broadcom’s dealings with EEA service providers. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

| (20) | Broadcom has not offered less onerous commitments that also address the Commission’s concerns adequately. The Final Commitments accordingly comply with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/12

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 7 October 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40608 – Broadcom

Rapporteur: Lithuania

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/10)

1.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the conduct covered by the draft decision prima facie constitutes an abuse of a dominant position that infringes Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment in the draft decision on the urgent need for interim measures due to the risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition.

3.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that it is necessary and appropriate to impose interim measures pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in the terms set out in the draft decision.

4.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the duration of the interim measures, as set out in the draft decision.

5.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/13

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Broadcom – Interim Measures Procedure

(Case AT.40608)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/11)

Introduction

| 1. | The draft decision imposes interim measures pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) on Broadcom Inc. concerning behaviour that according to the draft decision is prima facie breaching Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Overview of the procedure

| 2. | Following the receipt of market information in the course of 2018 concerning potential anticompetitive behaviour by Broadcom Inc. and its subsidiaries, the Commission sent, between 24 October 2018 and 17 May 2019, requests for information pursuant to Articles 18(2) and 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to Broadcom, its direct and indirect customers and its competitors. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Initiation of proceedings. On 26 June 2019, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against Broadcom Inc. in Case AT.40608 Broadcom. According to this decision:






  — | the case concerns ‘potential anticompetitive behaviour by Broadcom Inc. and its subsidiaries (together “Broadcom”) relating to (i) Systems-on-a-chip, Front-end chips and WiFi chipsets for modems/residential gateways and TV set-top boxes, as well as to (ii) components for so-called central office/head end equipment for the provision of xDSL, fibre and cable connections in the European Economic Area. The Commission has information indicating that Broadcom may be implementing a range of exclusionary practices in relation to these products. Such practices cover, in particular, setting exclusive purchasing obligations, granting of rebates or other advantages conditioned on exclusivity, quasi-exclusivity or minimum purchase requirements, product bundling, abusive IP-related strategies or the deliberate degrading of interoperability between Broadcom products and products from other manufacturers’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

the case concerns ‘potential anticompetitive behaviour by Broadcom Inc. and its subsidiaries (together “Broadcom”) relating to (i) Systems-on-a-chip, Front-end chips and WiFi chipsets for modems/residential gateways and TV set-top boxes, as well as to (ii) components for so-called central office/head end equipment for the provision of xDSL, fibre and cable connections in the European Economic Area. The Commission has information indicating that Broadcom may be implementing a range of exclusionary practices in relation to these products. Such practices cover, in particular, setting exclusive purchasing obligations, granting of rebates or other advantages conditioned on exclusivity, quasi-exclusivity or minimum purchase requirements, product bundling, abusive IP-related strategies or the deliberate degrading of interoperability between Broadcom products and products from other manufacturers’;

| — | if the existence of such behaviour were to be confirmed, it might constitute an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

if the existence of such behaviour were to be confirmed, it might constitute an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA.

| 4. | Statement of objections. Also on 26 June 2019, the Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to Broadcom Inc. setting out the Commission’s preliminary view on the need to adopt interim measures pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The envisaged interim measures would in particular consist in ordering Broadcom to cease to apply exclusivity-inducing provisions in agreements with seven of its direct customers ([...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...] and [...]) concerning their purchases from Broadcom of systems-on-chips for set-top boxes or systems-on-chips for cable, fibre or xDSL residential gateways, front-end chips or WiFi chipsets until the end of the Commission’s investigation in Case AT.40608 Broadcom. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Access to the file. On the same day, Broadcom received an electronic storage device containing the accessible part of the Commission’s investigation file as it then stood. |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | Time limit for the written response. The Directorate General for Competition (hereafter ‘DG Competition’) initially set a time limit of 8 July 2019 for Broadcom’s written response to the statement of objections. |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | On 30 June 2019, Broadcom requested from DG Competition an extension of three weeks, until 29 July 2019. On 1 July 2019, DG Competition extended the time limit until 15 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | On 5 July 2019, Broadcom sent to me a request (dated 4 July 2019) pursuant to Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, to review DG Competition’s refusal to extend the time limit until 29 July 2019. By letter of 8 July 2019, I extended the time limit until 23 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | Date of the oral hearing. In the same letter of 8 July 2019, I informed Broadcom that, if Broadcom requested in its written response to the statement of objections the opportunity to develop its arguments at an oral hearing, this oral hearing would take place on 29 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | On 12 July 2019, Broadcom sent to me a request pursuant to Article 12(1), second sentence, of Decision 2011/695/EU to postpone the oral hearing until at the earliest the week of 19 August 2019. On the same day, I accepted Broadcom’s request and postponed the oral hearing until 20 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | Written response. Broadcom submitted its written response to the statement of objections on 23 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | Admission of interested third persons. A number of third persons applied to me and were admitted by me as interested third persons pursuant to Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 5 of Decision 2011/695/EU:






  — | an indirect customer of Broadcom (Liberty Global) applied on 9 July 2019 and was admitted the same day; |
| --- | --- | --- |

12.

—

an indirect customer of Broadcom (Liberty Global) applied on 9 July 2019 and was admitted the same day;

| — | a competitor of Broadcom (MaxLinear) also applied on 9 July 2019 and was admitted on the same day; |
| --- | --- |

—

a competitor of Broadcom (MaxLinear) also applied on 9 July 2019 and was admitted on the same day;

| — | a second competitor (MediaTek) applied on 10 July 2019 and was admitted on 11 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a second competitor (MediaTek) applied on 10 July 2019 and was admitted on 11 July 2019;

| — | a third competitor (Intel) applied on 12 July 2019 and was admitted on 15 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a third competitor (Intel) applied on 12 July 2019 and was admitted on 15 July 2019;

| — | a fourth competitor (Quantenna) also applied on 12 July 2019 and was admitted on 15 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a fourth competitor (Quantenna) also applied on 12 July 2019 and was admitted on 15 July 2019;

| — | a direct customer of Broadcom ([...]) applied on 24 July 2019 and was admitted on 26 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a direct customer of Broadcom ([...]) applied on 24 July 2019 and was admitted on 26 July 2019;

| — | a second direct customer ([...]) applied on 29 July 2019 and was admitted on 30 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a second direct customer ([...]) applied on 29 July 2019 and was admitted on 30 July 2019;

| — | an association grouping indirect customers (Cable Europe) applied on 30 July 2019 and was admitted on 31 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

an association grouping indirect customers (Cable Europe) applied on 30 July 2019 and was admitted on 31 July 2019;

| — | a second indirect customer (Tele 2) applied on 31 July 2019 and was admitted on 1 August 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a second indirect customer (Tele 2) applied on 31 July 2019 and was admitted on 1 August 2019;

| — | a third direct customer ([...]) applied on 7 August 2019 and was admitted on 12 August 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

a third direct customer ([...]) applied on 7 August 2019 and was admitted on 12 August 2019;

| — | a fourth direct customer ([...]) applied on 19 August 2019 and was admitted on the same day. |
| --- | --- |

—

a fourth direct customer ([...]) applied on 19 August 2019 and was admitted on the same day.

| 13. | Written comments by interested third persons. In conformity with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, DG Competition informed each of the interested third persons about the nature and subject matter of the procedure (by providing them with a non-confidential version of the statement of objections) and granted each of them the opportunity to make known its views in writing within a set time limit. Seven of the eleven interested third persons (MaxLinear, MediaTek, Intel, Quantenna, [...], [...] and Cable Europe) made use of this opportunity and submitted written comments between 26 July and 9 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | Letter of facts. Considering that the written comments submitted by the four competitors that had been admitted as interested third persons (MaxLinear, MediaTek, Intel and Quantenna) contained evidence that might be relevant to corroborate and support the Commission’s preliminary conclusions reached in the statement of objections, the Commission sent on 1 August 2019 a letter of facts to Broadcom setting out this evidence. |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | Within the same letter of facts the Commission also transmitted to Broadcom two letters that direct customers of Broadcom had sent to the Commission and that could be of relevance to Broadcom’s defence:






  — | a letter sent by [...] on 19 July 2019; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

15.

—

a letter sent by [...] on 19 July 2019; and

| — | a letter sent by [...] on 24 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

—

a letter sent by [...] on 24 July 2019.

| 16. | In the letter of facts, DG Competition initially set a time limit of 7 August 2019 for Broadcom’s written comments. On 7 August 2019, Broadcom requested and obtained from DG Competition an extension of this time limit until 22 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | Broadcom submitted written comments on the letter of facts on 22 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | Preparation of the oral hearing. On 26 July 2019, I sent Broadcom the formal invitation to the oral hearing and requested Broadcom to provide me by 2 August 2019 with information concerning, among other things, the envisaged duration of its presentation at the oral hearing and whether, and if so the reasons why, it requested a closed session for any part of its presentation. |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | On 5 August 2019, Broadcom sent me its response, requesting a closed session for a large part of its presentation, but not providing any indication as to the envisaged duration of its presentation. |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | Later on the same day, I sent Broadcom the draft agenda for the oral hearing, divided in a plenary morning session, with a first presentation by Broadcom and presentations by interested third persons, and a closed session in the afternoon, and allocated durations for each of the parts. On 7 August 2019, Broadcom informed me that it had no comments on the draft agenda. |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | On 6 August 2019, I sent the formal invitations to the oral hearing to the third persons that had by that point in time requested to be admitted as interested third persons (see list in paragraph 12 above) and that had requested to take part in the oral hearing. The two indirect customers that had individually been admitted as interested third persons (Liberty Global and Tele2) did not request to take part in the oral hearing, whereas the association (Cable Europe) did. |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | The third persons that applied to be admitted as interested third persons after the draft agenda had been determined on 5 August 2019 (see list in paragraph 12 above) were not invited to the oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | Oral hearing. The oral hearing took place as planned on 20 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | As Broadcom could not fully answer two of the questions asked by DG Competition during the closed session, I allowed Broadcom, pursuant to Article 12(3), second sentence, of Decision 2011/695/EU, to provide a written reply by 26 August 2019. Broadcom provided this written reply on 26 August 2019, and I forwarded this reply to all the participants in the closed session. |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | In accordance with Article 14(8) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, the recording of the oral hearing was made available to Broadcom at noon on 22 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | On 23 August 2019, Broadcom submitted a request pursuant to Article 12(4) of Decision 2011/695/EU to be afforded the opportunity to submit further written comments after the oral hearing. On 26 August 2019, I rejected this request, as Broadcom had failed to demonstrate the need for such further written comments to ensure its right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | Further access to the file. On 17 September 2019, DG Competition provided Broadcom access to the additional documents registered on the Commission’s file since 26 June 2019 and granted Broadcom an opportunity to submit comments relating to these documents until 20 September 2019. Broadcom did not make use of that opportunity. |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | Consultation of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted with a time limit of seven days, in conformity with Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Lack of advance notice of the possibility of interim measures

| 29. | In paragraphs 32 and 319 to 322 of its written response to the statement of objections, Broadcom complains that it received essentially no advance notice of the possibility of interim measures and the issuance of the statement of objections, and that the Commission thus infringed the principles of procedural fairness and equality of arms. The evidence in the file to which Broadcom received access following the issuance of the statement of objections shows that MediaTek requested that the Commission impose interim measures in November 2018. In prior cases where the Commission imposed interim measures, the Commission informed the parties in advance, and in some cases even provided the addressee with an opportunity to comment on the request filed by a third party. For instance, in the most recent prior case, COMP/38.044 NDC Health/IMS Health, NDC Health filed with the Commission a complaint requesting interim measures on 19 December 2000. This complaint was sent the next day to IMS Health, who was therefore aware of the possibility of interim measures more than two months before the issuance of the statement of objections on 9 March 2001. |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | It appears indeed that Broadcom received essentially no specific advance warning of the possibility of interim measures and the issuance of the statement of objections (4). |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | Broadcom was however well aware of the broader investigation in Case AT.40608 Broadcom. Indeed, it had received a request for information pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on 17 December 2018, and a third party to whom the Commission had addressed an earlier request for information ([...]), had forwarded that request for information to Broadcom on 22 November 2018. On 21 March 2019, a meeting between Broadcom and DG Competition took place, in which Broadcom gave a presentation concerning the competitive conditions in set-top boxes and residential gateways as well as the content of their agreements with three of the customers covered by the statement of objections ([...], [...] and [...]). In a Form 8-K filing to the Unites States Securities and Exchange Commission dated 26 June 2019 (5), Broadcom states that the initiation of proceedings in Case AT.40608 Broadcom on 26 June 2019 followed ‘months of discussion with Broadcom’. |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | In any event, it does not appear that there is a legal obligation for the Commission to provide advance warning of the issuance of a statement of objections seeking the imposition of interim measures pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | According to the case law, undertakings or associations of undertakings that are subject to an investigative measure under Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (inspection or request for information) have the right to be informed of their procedural status, namely whether they are subject to an investigation and, if so, the subject matter and purpose of that investigation (6). Broadcom received such information in the first two recitals of the request for information of 17 December 2018. |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | Also according to the case law, it is however only upon receipt of the statement of objections that the parties concerned are informed of all the objections made and the evidence used against them and are able to rely in full on their rights of defence (7). |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | Finally (and although this does not appear determinative for answering the question whether advance warning is legally required), as to the comparison with prior practice of the Commission, in particular in the most recent case, COMP/38.044 NDC Health/IMS Health (see paragraph 29 above), it should be kept in mind that the interim measures procedure in the present case is not based on a complaint, and indeed could not legally have been based on a complaint. Whereas the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation 17 in Camera Care as covering also interim measures simultaneously extended the legal status of complainant under Regulation 17 to interim measures (8), it is clear from the text of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (compared to the text of its Article 7), as well as from the legislative history of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (9), that interim measures can only be adopted at the Commission’s own initiative. There exists no legal status of complainant in relation to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (10). |
| --- | --- |

35.

Time limit for the written response to the statement of objections

| 36. | In paragraphs 33 and 313 and 325 of its written response to the statement of objections, Broadcom complains that it was given an unreasonably short period to respond in writing to the statement of objections. In this respect it refers to the criteria set out in paragraph 100 of the Commission’s Notice on Best Practices (11) and to the Opinion of Advocate General Warner in Commercial Solvents (12). |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 provides that, when notifying the statement of objections to the parties concerned, the Commission must set a time limit within which these parties may inform it in writing of their views. According to Article 17(1) of the same regulation, in setting this time limit, the Commission must have regard both to the time required for preparation of the written response and to the urgency of the case. Article 17(2) stipulates that the time limit must be






  — | at least four weeks in case of a statement of objections with a view to finding an infringement pursuant to Articles 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or imposing a fine pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

37.

—

at least four weeks in case of a statement of objections with a view to finding an infringement pursuant to Articles 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or imposing a fine pursuant to Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003;

| — | at least one week in case of a statement of objections with a view of adopting interim measures pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

at least one week in case of a statement of objections with a view of adopting interim measures pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 38. | This shorter minimum time limit for interim measures procedures (one week instead of four weeks) reflects the specific nature of interim measures procedures, as compared to normal antitrust procedures under Articles 7 and/or 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 leading to the finding of an infringement and/or the imposition of fines. The main specificity of interim measures procedures is the inherent need for speed. |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | According to the case law, in merger control proceedings under the EU Merger Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, the general scheme of which is characterised by the need for speed, and which requires the Commission to comply with strict time limits for the adoption of the final decision, ‘the Commission is required to reconcile this need for speed with the observance of the rights of the defence’ (13), and the exercise of the rights of the defence may thus be reasonably adapted to the need for speed (14). |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | Similarly, a need for speed is inherent in interim measures proceedings, and the exercise of the rights of the defence may thus similarly be reasonably adjusted to the urgency of interim measures proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | Paragraph 100 of the Commission’s Notice on Best Practices provides that a longer period than the minimum time limit will be granted by DG Competition taking into account, inter alia, the size and complexity of the file, the extent to which the addressee of the statement of objections has had prior access to the information, and any other objective obstacles which may be faced by the addressee of the statement of objections. |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | It is however clear from that paragraph 100 of the Notice on Best Practices, which states that the minimum period is four weeks, that this paragraph does not apply to interim measures procedures (15), for which, as mentioned above (16), the minimum time limit is only one week. Moreover, as indicated in its paragraph 7, the Notice on Best Practices does not create any new rights or obligations, nor alter the rights or obligations which arise from the Treaty, Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and the case law of the EU Courts (17). |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | As mentioned above (18), in the present case Broadcom was in the end granted a time limit of close to four weeks for its written response to the statement of objections, much longer than the minimum period of one week. |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | In setting this time limit, I took into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including, as required by Article 9(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, the size and complexity of the file, the extent to which Broadcom had had prior access to the information, and any other objective obstacles which Broadcom was faced with. |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | The situation of Broadcom in the present case is not comparable with that criticised by Advocate General Warner in Commercial Solvents. The latter case did not concern an interim measures procedure but a normal antitrust procedure, and Commercial Solvents was only granted two weeks for its written response to the statement of objections (19). Moreover, notwithstanding the criticism he expressed, Advocate General Warner in the end considered that this short time limit was not a ground for annulment of the Commission’s final decision in that case (20). |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | Finally, as mentioned above (21), I postponed the date of the oral hearing as requested by Broadcom, and I did not limit Broadcom’s speaking time at the oral hearing. Having read Broadcom’s written response to the statement of objections and listened to Broadcom’s presentations at the oral hearing, which were both fairly extensive and detailed, I have no doubt that Broadcom has been given adequate time to respond to the statement of objections. |
| --- | --- |

46.

Access to the file

| 47. | In paragraph 33 of its written response to the statement of objections, Broadcom complains of ‘inadequate access to the file, given the high percentage of materials that were withheld or redacted on confidentiality grounds’. |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | As mentioned above (22), Broadcom received on 26 June 2019 an electronic storage device containing the accessible part of the Commission’s investigation file as it then stood (23). |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | In its request of 30 June 2019 to DG Competition for an extension of the time limit for its written response to the statement of objections (24), Broadcom announced that it was ‘preparing a request for further access to documents which it will file as soon as the review of the accessible file is complete’. |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | In its letter of 1 July 2019 (25), DG Competition responded that ‘we stand ready to review any duly substantiated requests for further access to the file that you may wish to submit within a timeframe that is compatible with the urgency of the proceedings at stake’. |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | In its request sent to me on 5 July 2019 for the extension of the time limit for its written response to the statement of objections (26), Broadcom listed four ‘examples’ of alleged problems concerning specific documents in the file, and announced again that it was ‘preparing a request for further access to file’ which it would send to the Commission ‘as soon as possible’. |
| --- | --- |

51.

| 52. | DG Competition dealt swiftly with the complaints concerning those four specific documents. For a first document, which Broadcom indicated was partially unreadable, DG Competition provided Broadcom on the same day, 5 July 2019, with a fully readable copy. By email of 9 July 2019, after having contacted the document providers, DG Competition provided Broadcom with more explanations as well as less redacted versions of the second and third documents. For the fourth document, DG Competition explained in its email of 9 July 2019 that it had accepted at a previous stage of the proceedings the substantiated request of the document provider for anonymization of the excerpts at stake, insofar as a more extensive disclosure could expose the document provider to a concrete risk of retaliatory measures by Broadcom, that upon further review this assessment was confirmed, and that in any event the explicit identification of the respondent was unlikely to be relevant. |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | DG Competition further indicated in its email of 9 July 2019 that, in case of disagreement, Broadcom could raise the matter with the Hearing Officer. Broadcom did not subsequently raise the matter with me. |
| --- | --- |

53.

| 54. | Broadcom has not submitted any later requests for further access to the file, neither in the remaining time until the submission of its written response to the statement of objections on 23 July 2019, nor in the subsequent period of its preparation for the oral hearing of 20 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | I have not detected in Broadcom’s written response to the statement of objections, or during the oral hearing, any specific indication of any problem concerning access to the file that could have impeded the effective exercise of Broadcom’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

55.

Non-invitation of an interested third person to the oral hearing

| 56. | At the oral hearing, Broadcom complained that [...], one of its direct customers and an interested third person (see paragraphs 4 and 12 above), had not been invited to the oral hearing. Broadcom had also raised this matter with me in an email of 12 August 2019, to which I replied on 13 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

56.

| 57. | As mentioned above (27), I invited to the oral hearing all the third persons that had applied to be admitted as interested third persons before the draft agenda of the oral hearing was determined on 5 August 2019, but not those that applied to be admitted as interested third persons after that date. The latter category includes [...], which requested on 7 August 2019 to be admitted as interested third person and to be invited to the oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

57.

| 58. | Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 provides that the Commission must inform interested third persons in writing of the nature and subject matter of the procedure and allow them to make known their views in writing within a set time limit. Article 13(2) adds that the Commission ‘may, where appropriate, invite [those interested third persons] to develop their arguments at the oral hearing of the parties to whom a statement of objections has been addressed, if [those interested third persons] so request in their written comments’. |
| --- | --- |

58.

| 59. | It is clear from these provisions that, whereas interested third persons have a right to be heard in writing, they have no right to be heard also orally at the oral hearing. Whether or not interested third persons are also heard orally at the oral hearing depends on a discretionary decision whether such invitation is ‘appropriate’. Article 6(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU has entrusted the Hearing Officer with this decision, subject to consultation of the Director responsible for the case in DG Competition. |
| --- | --- |

59.

| 60. | A number of factors are (or, depending on the specific case, can be) relevant for assessing whether it is appropriate to hear an interested third person also orally at the oral hearing, including the contribution the interested third person can make to the clarification of the facts (28). The point in time at which the third person requests to be admitted as interested third person and the point in time at which it expresses its interest in being heard orally at the oral hearing is a relevant factor, for two reasons. The first reason is that late requests interfere with the efficient and timely preparation of the oral hearing, in particular the determination of the agenda of the oral hearing. Secondly, in cases with a large number of interested third persons, the effectiveness of the oral hearing may require limiting the participation of interested third persons to a smaller, representative set of interested third persons. The point in time at which otherwise comparable third persons express their interest in being heard orally can provide a non-discriminatory criterion for selecting the smaller set of interested third persons invited to the oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

60.

| 61. | In the present case, the Commission published on 26 June 2019 its Press release IP/19/3410, thus allowing third persons to start applying to be admitted as interested third persons and express their interest in being invited to the oral hearing (if an oral hearing would be requested by Broadcom). It is in the nature of interim measures procedures that they move fast, and it can thus be expected that third persons that wish to be admitted as interested third persons and to be invited to the oral hearing manifest themselves quickly. Indeed, as indicated above (29), the majority of interested third person requests were lodged within the first month following the publication of the press release. |
| --- | --- |

61.

| 62. | As mentioned above (30), [...] only requested to be admitted as interested third person on 7 August 2019, two days after the draft agenda of the oral hearing had been determined. Following the determination of the draft agenda, the two other direct customers of Broadcom who had earlier requested to be heard orally ([...] and [...]) had already been formally invited to the oral hearing on 6 August 2019 (31). |
| --- | --- |

62.

| 63. | As mentioned in paragraph 15 above, [...] had already on 19 July 2019 sent a letter to DG Competition with information it wanted to provide. At that time [...] did however not request to be admitted as interested third person or to be heard orally. The content of the letter did not suggest any need for further oral explanations either. |
| --- | --- |

63.

| 64. | Indeed it appears from its response of 25 July 2019 to a request for information sent by DG Competition on 22 July 2019 that [...], following contacts with Broadcom initiated by Broadcom on 5 July 2019, had decided on 12 July 2019 to send a letter to the Commission but not to participate in the oral hearing, and that it had communicated both decisions to Broadcom on 13 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

64.

| 65. | As to Broadcom’s standing to complain about the non-invitation of [...] to the oral hearing, Article 10(3), last sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 provides that parties may in their written response to the statement of objections propose that the Commission hear persons who may corroborate the facts set out in their submission. Broadcom did not make any such proposals in its written response of 23 July 2019. |
| --- | --- |

65.

| 66. | Finally, in its presentations during the oral hearing, Broadcom made extensive use of [...]’s letter of 19 July 2019 (32). I cannot detect any way in which [...]’s absence at the oral hearing could have harmed the effective exercise of Broadcom’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

66.

Denial of the normal procedure under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

| 67. | At the oral hearing, Broadcom complained that it was being denied the normal exercise of its rights of the defence because the Commission has, unnecessarily and without the legal requirement of urgency being fulfilled, chosen to send a statement of objections with a view to adopting interim measures pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 instead of a normal statement of objections with a view to finding an infringement pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

67.

| 68. | In my view this complaint is in reality not about Broadcom’s procedural rights but rather about whether or not the substantive requirement of urgency within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is fulfilled in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

68.

| 69. | Indeed, there are logically only two possibilities:






  i. | either, as Broadcom considers, the Commission has not established the existence of urgency within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; if that turns out to be the case, then any final decision of the Commission imposing interim measures could not be upheld for that reason; |
| --- | --- | --- |

69.

i.

either, as Broadcom considers, the Commission has not established the existence of urgency within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003; if that turns out to be the case, then any final decision of the Commission imposing interim measures could not be upheld for that reason;

| ii. | or, contrary to Broadcom’s position, such urgency is established; in that case, Broadcom cannot claim any other procedural rights than those applicable in an interim measures procedure. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

or, contrary to Broadcom’s position, such urgency is established; in that case, Broadcom cannot claim any other procedural rights than those applicable in an interim measures procedure.

The draft decision

| 70. | In comparison with the statement of objections, the draft decision has a more limited scope in several respects: the draft decision does not find a dominant position in the market for the supply of systems-on-a-chip for cable modems (and hence finds no prima facie abuse of such dominant position); it does not find any prima facie abuse of a dominant position in the form of ‘naked restrictions’; and it does not find any prima facie abuse as regards the markets for front-end chips and WiFi chipsets. As a result, exclusivity-inducing provisions in agreements with only six, instead of seven, of Broadcom’s direct customers are concerned by the draft decision. Furthermore, the duration of the interim measures has been limited to a maximum of three years. |
| --- | --- |

70.

| 71. | In accordance with Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which Broadcom has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does. |
| --- | --- |

71.

Conclusion

| 72. | Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in the interim measures procedure in this case. |
| --- | --- |

72.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

Wouter WILS

---

(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 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

3

(4)  DG Competition informed Broadcom’s external lawyers of the forthcoming statement of objections and its timing in a meeting from 3 to 4 pm on 25 June 2019, the day before the issuance of the statement of objections.

4

During two informal telephone conversations in the middle of June 2019, the external lawyers of Broadcom has also been informed by DG Competition that they should prepare to devote resources to the investigation during the summer. However, in the absence of any mention of a possible interim measures procedure, it would have been reasonable for Broadcom to understand this as an advance warning of further requests for information rather than an advance warning of an interim measures procedure.

(5)  https://investors.broadcom.com/static-files/8fdf8974-7641-4c5b-bf84-82edb4215a61

5

(6)  Judgment in AC-Treuhand v Commission, T-99/04, ECLI:EU:T:2008:256, paragraphs 44 to 60 ; see also Article 4(2)(a) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

6

AC-Treuhand

Commission

(7)  Judgments in Elf Aquitaine v Commission, C-521/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:620, paragraphs 113 to 122, and in AC-Treuhand v Commission, T-27/10, ECLI:EU:T:2014:59, paragraphs 165 to 196; see also Final Report of the Hearing Officer of 22 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 Retail Food Packaging, [2015] OJ C402/6.

7

Elf Aquitaine

Commission

AC-Treuhand

Commission

Retail Food Packaging

(8)  Order in Camera Care v Commission, 792/79 R, ECLI:EU:C:1980:18.

8

Camera Care

Commission

(9)  See the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Commission’s legislative proposal, COM(2000) 582 final of 27.9.2000 at page 18 (explanations relating to Article 8 – Interim measures).

9

(10)  See also Commission Notice on the handling of complaints by the Commission under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 65), paragraph 80.

10

(11)  Commission Notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6).

11

(12)  Opinion of Advocate General Warner of 22 January 1974 in Commercial Solvents v Commission, 6 and 7/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:5.

12

Commercial Solvents

Commission

(13)  Judgment of 16 January 2019 in Commission v United Parcel Service, C-265/17 P, ECLI:EU:C:2019:23, paragraph 38; see also Opinion of Advocate-General Kokott of 25 July 2018 in Commission v United Parcel Service, C-265/17 P, ECLI:EU:C:2018:628, paragraph 54 (‘the constraints to which the European competition authority is subject in relation to merger control (not least considerable time pressure, but also limited resources) must have consequences with regard to the manner in which the undertakings concerned make use of their rights of the defence’).

13

Commission

United Parcel Service

Commission

United Parcel Service

(14)  Judgments of 27 November 1997 in Kaysersberg v Commission, T-290/94, ECLI:EU:T:1997:186, paragraph 113; of 28 April 1999 in Endemol Entertainment v Commission, T-221/95, ECLI:EU:T:1999:85, paragraphs 67, 68, 70 and 84; of 22 October 2002 in Schneider Electric v Commission, T-310/01, ECLI:EU:T:2002:254, paragraph 100; of 25 October 2002 in Tetra Laval v Commission, T-5/02, ECLI:EU:T:2002:264, paragraph 105; and of 14 December 2005 in General Electric v Commission, T-210/01, ECLI:EU:T:2005:456, paragraphs 631, 653 to 655, 666, 680 to 686, as well as 701 and 702.

14

Kaysersberg

Commission

Endemol Entertainment

Commission

Schneider Electric

Commission

Tetra Laval

Commission

General Electric

Commission

(15)  More generally, although lacking any explicit exclusion, the Commission’s Notice on Best Practices in its entirety does not appear to cover interim measures procedures.

15

(16)  See paragraph 37 above.

16

(17)  See Judgment of 19 January 2016 in Toshiba v Commission, T-404/12, ECLI:EU:T:2016:18, paragraph 56.

17

Toshiba

Commission

(18)  See paragraphs 4 to 8 above.

18

(19)  See Judgment of 6 January 1974 in Commercial Solvents v Commission, 6 and 7/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:18, [1974] ECR 225 at 227.

19

Commercial Solvents

Commission

(20)  Opinion of Advocate General Warner of 22 January 1974 in Commercial Solvents v Commission, 6 and 7/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:5, [1974] ECR 259 at 275.

20

Commercial Solvents

Commission

(21)  See paragraphs 10, 18 to 20 and 23 above.

21

(22)  See paragraph 5 above.

22

(23)  See also paragraph 27 above.

23

(24)  See paragraph 7 above.

24

(25)  See paragraph 7 above.

25

(26)  See paragraph 8 above.

26

(27)  See paragraphs 21 and 22 above.

27

(28)  See recital 13 of Decision 2011/695/EU.

28

(29)  See paragraph 12 above.

29

(30)  See paragraph 57 above.

30

(31)  See paragraphs 12 and 21 above.

31

(32)  See slides 12, 18, 28, 30, 33 and 58 of Broadcom’s PowerPoint presentation for the plenary morning session, and slides 4, 40 and 48 of its PowerPoint presentation for the closed session.

32

---

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/23

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 16 October 2019

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

(Case AT.40608 – Broadcom)

(notified under document C(2019) 7406)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/12)

On
  16 October 2019
  , the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | This Decision sets out the European Commission’s (the ‘Commission’) findings that the conduct of Broadcom Inc. is prima facie breaching Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’) and that the likely damage resulting from such infringement is such as to give rise to a situation of urgency justifying the adoption of interim measures pursuant to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

2.   MARKET DEFINITION

| (2) | The Decision concerns certain types of integrated circuits (‘ICs’) incorporated into network access equipment that is installed at customer premises (so-called customer premises equipment, ‘CPE’), namely set-top boxes (‘STBs’) and residential gateways. The factual and legal analysis set out in the Decision indicates that, prima facie, there are separate markets for:






  (a) | STB SoCs (2); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

(a)

STB SoCs (2);

| (b) | SoCs for fibre residential gateways; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

SoCs for fibre residential gateways;

| (c) | SoCs for xDSL residential gateways; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

SoCs for xDSL residential gateways; and

| (d) | SoCs for cable residential gateways. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

SoCs for cable residential gateways.

| (3) | The Decision concludes that the geographic market for all markets is, prima facie, worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

3.   DOMINANCE

| (4) | The Decision concludes that Broadcom is prima facie dominant in the following worldwide markets:






  (a) | STB SoCs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(4)

(a)

STB SoCs;

| (b) | SoCs for xDSL residential gateways; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

SoCs for xDSL residential gateways; and

| (c) | SoCs for fibre residential gateways. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

SoCs for fibre residential gateways.

| (5) | The finding of dominance in the Decision is supported by the following elements, which are based on a prima facie assessment: (i) large market shares held by Broadcom in all the relevant markets (above 50 % in all of them); (ii) lack of countervailing buyer power by Broadcom’s customers; and (iii) the existence of barriers to entry in the relevant markets. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

4.   ABUSE OF A DOMINANT POSITION

| (6) | The Decision establishes that, prima facie, Broadcom’s conduct infringes Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA Agreement, thus giving rise ‘at first sight’ to serious doubts as to its compatibility with those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | The Decision finds that Broadcom entered into six agreements (the ‘Agreements’) with six original equipment manufacturers (‘OEMs’). The Agreements govern Broadcom’s supply of SoCs, for later integration into STBs and residential gateways by the OEMs. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | The Decision concludes that, prima facie, the Agreements contain exclusivity-inducing provisions which can be grouped into two different types of restrictions of competition. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | First, the Decision examines exclusivity and quasi-exclusivity arrangements in the form of obligations or promises to obtain products in which Broadcom is dominant exclusively or almost exclusively from Broadcom or provisions that make the granting of certain advantages conditional on the customer obtaining products in which Broadcom is dominant exclusively or almost exclusively from Broadcom. The Commission prima facie concluded that all the Agreements amount to a system of exclusivity and quasi-exclusivity arrangements, capable of restricting competition. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | Second, the Decision examines leveraging practices based on provisions contained in five of the six Agreements which allow Broadcom to leverage market power from one or more product markets to one or more adjacent but separate product markets. With regard to these provisions, the Decision prima facie finds that in certain instances, such leveraging is achieved by means of advantages granted in markets in which Broadcom is prima facie dominant, which are conditional on customers buying exclusively or almost exclusively products from Broadcom in markets in which Broadcom is not prima facie dominant. The Decision finds this conduct to have the likely effect of extending Broadcom’s dominance from one or more markets (markets for STB SoCs, fibre residential gateway SoCs and xDSL residential gateway SoCs) to one other market (the market for cable residential gateway SoCs). In other instances, Broadcom engages in cross-leveraging by granting advantages in markets in which Broadcom is prima facie dominant, which are conditional on customers buying exclusively or almost exclusively products from Broadcom in markets in which Broadcom is also prima facie dominant. The Decision finds this conduct to have the likely effect of strengthening Broadcom’s dominance in the markets in which Broadcom is prima facie dominant (the market for STB SoCs, fibre residential gateway SoCs and xDSL residential gateway SoCs). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | The Decision concludes that Broadcom’s exclusivity-inducing provisions are prima facie capable of affecting competition and that Broadcom’s conduct is not prima facie objectively justified. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

5.   JURISDICTION

| (12) | The Commission concludes that it has jurisdiction to apply Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement to Broadcom’s conduct described in this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

6.   EFFECT ON TRADE

| (13) | The Commission concludes that Broadcom’s conduct is, prima facie, capable of affecting the pattern of trade in goods between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

7.   Urgency due to the risk of serious and irreparable damage to competition

| (14) | The Decision concludes that if Broadcom’s prima facie abusive conduct would continue, it would likely lead to serious and irreparable damage to competition in each of the relevant markets before the Commission could reasonably take a final decision on the substance. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

| (15) | In particular, it is likely that Broadcom’s competitors would become increasingly marginalised or exit the market if they were not urgently put into a position to be able to effectively compete with Broadcom for downstream demand. In the absence of the Commission’s urgent intervention by means of interim measures, the application of Broadcom’s exclusivity-inducing conditions would ultimately span a time period longer than the typical interval between two tenders launched by service providers. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | In light of the adverse knock-on consequences of a chip supplier’s failure to win a particular tender on its ability to win tenders in subsequent generations of a particular product, the ability of Broadcom’s competitors to compete with Broadcom would be severely affected. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | The Commission considers that the likely damage to competition in this case must be considered as serious, as it would be capable of having long-lasting effects on the structure of the markets at stake, innovation and consumer welfare. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | Moreover, such damage could no longer be remedied by means of a final decision concluding the Commission’s administrative procedure, as it is highly unlikely that once a company has exited a given market that company would decide to re-enter the market at a later point in time, or be able to do so. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

8.   INTERIM MEASURES IMPOSED

| (19) | In light of the finding that Broadcom has, prima facie, engaged in an infringement of Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement and the urgent need to prevent serious and irreparable damage to competition, the Commission considers that interim measures are required to ensure the effective exercise of its competition law enforcement powers and, in particular, the effectiveness of any final decision it may take on the compatibility of Broadcom’s conduct with the rules on competition laid down in Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

| (20) | The Decision orders Broadcom to unilaterally cease to apply with immediate effect the exclusivity-inducing provisions contained in the Agreements with six OEMs concerning purchases of SoCs for STBs and SoCs for cable, fibre or xDSL residential gateways from Broadcom. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

| (21) | Furthermore, Broadcom is required to refrain from agreeing the same exclusivity-inducing provisions or provisions having an equivalent object or effect in any future contracts or agreements with the OEMs and from implementing practices having an equivalent object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

| (22) | The Decision concludes that the interim measures imposed are proportionate, as they are necessary to preserve the effective exercise of the Commission’s enforcement powers. The measures do also not impose an undue burden on Broadcom, as they are strictly limited to what is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage to competition, do not require Broadcom to engage in any active conduct that it is not ongoing at present and allow Broadcom to continue supplying the relevant products to its customers at the same conditions as before, absent the exclusivity-inducing provisions. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

| (23) | The interim measures will apply for (i) a time period of three years as from the date on which Broadcom informs the Commission of the measures that it has adopted or (ii) until the date of adoption of a final decision on the substance of Broadcom’s conduct covered by this Decision or the closure of the Commission’s investigation concerning that conduct, should either of these events occur prior to the end of the aforementioned three-year period. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

| (24) | The Decision sets out that Broadcom shall incur a daily penalty of up to 2 % of Broadcom’s average daily turnover if it fails to comply with the interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

(2)  ‘SoC’ stands for System-on-a-Chip.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/27

---

Update of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

(2021/C 81/13)

The publication of the list of border crossing points as referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) is based on the information notified by the Member States to the Commission pursuant to Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a regular update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.

LIST OF BORDER CROSSING POINTS

SWITZERLAND

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 58, 18.2.2021, p. 35.

Airports

| 1. | Basel-Mulhouse |
| --- | --- |

1.

Basel-Mulhouse

| 2. | Geneva-Cointrin |
| --- | --- |

2.

Geneva-Cointrin

| 3. | Zurich |
| --- | --- |

3.

Zurich

| 4. | St. Gallen-Altenrhein |
| --- | --- |

4.

St. Gallen-Altenrhein

| 5. | Bern-Belp |
| --- | --- |

5.

Bern-Belp

| 6. | Grenchen |
| --- | --- |

6.

Grenchen

| 7. | La-Chaux-de-Fond-Les Eplatures |
| --- | --- |

7.

La-Chaux-de-Fond-Les Eplatures

| 8. | Lausanne-La Blécherette |
| --- | --- |

8.

Lausanne-La Blécherette

| 9. | Locarno-Magadino |
| --- | --- |

9.

Locarno-Magadino

| 10. | Lugano-Agno |
| --- | --- |

10.

Lugano-Agno

| 11. | Samedan |
| --- | --- |

11.

Samedan

| 12. | Sion |
| --- | --- |

12.

Sion

| 13. | Buochs* |
| --- | --- |

13.

Buochs*

| 14. | Emmen* |
| --- | --- |

14.

Emmen*

| 15. | Mollis* |
| --- | --- |

15.

Mollis*

| 16. | Saanen* |
| --- | --- |

16.

Saanen*

| 17. | St. Stephan* |
| --- | --- |

17.

St. Stephan*

| 18. | Payerne* |
| --- | --- |

18.

Payerne*

| 19. | Dübendorf* |
| --- | --- |

19.

Dübendorf*

| * | May only be used as a border crossing point in exceptional circumstances, provided that an individual authorisation is granted in advance by the control authority present on site. |
| --- | --- |

*

Explanation:

The border crossing points marked with an asterisk (*) are not permanently manned by the staff of the border control authorities. They can only be used in exceptional circumstances to enter and leave the Schengen area, provided that an individual authorisation is issued in advance by the competent control authorities, pursuant to Article 29(3) of the Ordinance of 15 August 2018 on entry and the granting of visas (RS 142.204).

List of previous publications

OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1.

OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16.

OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9.

OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10.

OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13.

OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10.

OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10.

OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20.

OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7.

OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28.

OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22.

OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17.

OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13.

OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17.

OJ C 355, 29.12.2010, p. 34.

OJ C 22, 22.1.2011, p. 22.

OJ C 37, 5.2.2011, p. 12.

OJ C 149, 20.5.2011, p. 8.

OJ C 190, 30.6.2011, p. 17.

OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 14.

OJ C 210, 16.7.2011, p. 30.

OJ C 271, 14.9.2011, p. 18.

OJ C 356, 6.12.2011, p. 12.

OJ C 111, 18.4.2012, p. 3.

OJ C 183, 23.6.2012, p. 7.

OJ C 313, 17.10.2012, p. 11.

OJ C 394, 20.12.2012, p. 22.

OJ C 51, 22.2.2013, p. 9.

OJ C 167, 13.6.2013, p. 9.

OJ C 242, 23.8.2013, p. 2.

OJ C 275, 24.9.2013, p. 7.

OJ C 314, 29.10.2013, p. 5.

OJ C 324, 9.11.2013, p. 6.

OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 4.

OJ C 167, 4.6.2014, p. 9.

OJ C 244, 26.7.2014, p. 22.

OJ C 332, 24.9.2014, p. 12.

OJ C 420, 22.11.2014, p. 9.

OJ C 72, 28.2.2015, p. 17.

OJ C 126, 18.4.2015, p. 10.

OJ C 229, 14.7.2015, p. 5.

OJ C 341, 16.10.2015, p. 19.

OJ C 84, 4.3.2016, p. 2.

OJ C 236, 30.6.2016, p. 6.

OJ C 278, 30.7.2016, p. 47.

OJ C 331, 9.9.2016, p. 2.

OJ C 401, 29.10.2016, p. 4.

OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 30.

OJ C 32, 1.2.2017, p. 4.

OJ C 74, 10.3.2017, p. 9.

OJ C 120, 13.4.2017, p. 17.

OJ C 152, 16.5.2017, p. 5.

OJ C 411, 2.12.2017, p. 10.

OJ C 31, 27.1.2018, p. 12.

OJ C 261, 25.7.2018, p. 6.

OJ C 264, 26.7.2018, p. 8.

OJ C 368, 11.10.2018, p. 4.

OJ C 459, 20.12.2018, p. 40.

OJ C 43, 4.2.2019, p. 2.

OJ C 64, 27.2.2020, p. 6.

OJ C 58, 18.2.2021, p. 35.

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/29

---

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

(2021/C 81/14)

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

COMMUNICATING THE APPROVAL OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT

‘MOSCADELLO DI MONTALCINO’

PDO-IT-A1440-AM02

Date of communication: 10 November 2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Terms for product types – redrafting of the text

The terms for the product types have been standardised in order to make the labelling clearer and easier to read on the different wines with the ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ PDO. The grape varieties remain unchanged.

This formal amendment affects Articles 1 and 2 of the product specification but does not affect the single document.

2.   Description of the production area – redrafting of the text

The course of the production area boundary has been described in detail.

The redrafting does not amend the production area. The change was necessary, however, following the merger of the municipalities of Montalcino and San Giovanni d’Asso, which now form a single municipality known as Montalcino.

Indeed, the detailed description of the production area reflects the original PDO boundary. Obviously it does not include reference to the territory of the former municipality of San Giovanni d’Asso, now part of the municipality of Montalcino following the merger of the two.

This amendment affects Article 3 of the specification. Section 6 of the single document has consequently been amended.

3.   Requirements of the terrain – updates

Very wet terrain deep within valleys is excluded. The aim is to exclude areas that cannot meet the quality requirements of the designation.

The references to altitude requirements and to the geological configuration and origin have been removed. This is due to the changes in climate and to developments in mapping technology making it no longer necessary to describe the geological, morphological and altitude requirements for the terrain producing ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ wines.

Finally, the reference to the precaution of careful grape selection has been removed as the practice is no longer recognised at national level.

The amendment covering these updates, together with the other changes to the wording in Article 4 of the specification, do not affect the single document.

4.   Late harvest – changes to wording

For consistency, the provisions of the specification relating to the wine-making process have been moved from Article 6 to Article 5.

This does not affect the single document.

5.   Alteration to the description of the wines of PDO ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – semi-sparkling type

The minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume for the semi-sparkling wines has been increased from 4,5 % to 7 % in order to comply with the provisions of Annex VII(II) to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

The types of product covered by the designation are stated in order to differentiate their specific analytical and organoleptic characteristics.

This amendment affects Article 6 of the specification and section 4 of the single document.

6.   Requirement for cork stoppers deleted and exclusive use of glass bottles stipulated

Under the amendment, any closure permitted under current legislation may be used with the exception of crown caps. The amendment is due to technological advances in different types of bottle closures making it possible to maintain the high quality standards required for the designation ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’. It has been decided that only glass bottles may be used in order to provide the best conditions for keeping the product.

This amendment affects Article 7 of the specification and section 9 of the single document.

7.   Designations – additional references

Use of terms including ‘Collezione’ [collection] has been prohibited to avoid excessive additional references.

Use of the term ‘Cascina’ [farmhouse] has been prohibited as it is not part of the Tuscan tradition.

As an alternative form of the term ‘Vigna’ [vineyard] the term ‘Vigneto’ has been allowed, in compliance with the legislation in force.

These are formal amendments affecting Article 7 of the product specification but not affecting the single document.

8.   Link with the geographical area – formal amendment of the specification

The wording has been amended to reflect the content of the specification and the single document.

This is a formal amendment which does not invalidate the link referred to in Article 93(1)(a)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

This amendment affects Article 8 of the specification and section 8 of the single document.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Moscadello di Montalcino

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

| 1. | Wine |
| --- | --- |

1.

Wine

| 8. | Semi-sparkling wine |
| --- | --- |

8.

Semi-sparkling wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Still’ type

Colour: straw yellow.

Aroma: characteristic, delicate, fresh and long.

Taste: aromatic, sweet, harmonious, characteristic of the Moscato variety.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 %, of which at least a quarter should be potential alcoholic strength.

Minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume: 4,5 %.

Minimum sugar-free extract: 17 grams per litre.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Semi-sparkling’ type

Foam: fine and lively.

Colour: pale straw-yellow.

Aroma: characteristic, delicate, fresh and long.

Taste: aromatic, sweet, harmonious, characteristic of the Moscato grape variety.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 %, of which at least a quarter should be potential alcoholic strength.

Minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume: 7 %.

Minimum sugar-free extract: 17 grams per litre.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Late Harvest’ type

Colour: from straw yellow to golden yellow.

Aroma: characteristic, delicate and long.

Taste: aromatic, sweet and harmonious.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 15 %, of which 11,5 % is actual alcoholic strength by volume and 3,5 % is potential.

Minimum sugar-free extract: 24 grams per litre.

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | 4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | 25 |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

4 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

25

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre):

5.   Wine-making practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’, ‘Late Harvest’ type – Vinification

Specific oenological practice

The ‘Late Harvest’ type of ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ must undergo an ageing period of at least one year, starting from 1 January of the year following the harvest. It must not be released for consumption before 1 January of the second year following the harvest. All forms of enrichment are prohibited.

During ageing, the wine may undergo secondary fermentation which slows down in colder months.

b.   Maximum yields

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Still’ and ‘Semi-sparkling’ types

10 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Still’ and ‘Semi-sparkling’ types

65 hectolitres per hectare

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Late Harvest’ type

5 000 kilograms of grapes per hectare

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ – ‘Late Harvest’ type

22,5 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

For grapes suitable for making wine of the ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ PDO, the production area covers part of the municipality of Montalcino. It is demarcated as follows.

Starting from the confluence of the Serlate stream with the Sala drainage channel, going north to south, the boundary runs south-east, crossing the local Vodice road at spot elevation 152,0, following the winding course of the aforementioned Serlate, apart from four places where the boundary ‘expands’ west of the stream. At the last of these, the boundary continues at a height of around 150 metres above sea level, staying more or less parallel to the Cassia state road.

At about 250 metres from the Canapaccia villa (direction NNE) and the Galluzzo villa (direction NNW), at 157 metres above sea level and about 60 metres from spot elevation 157, the boundary departs from the course of the Serlate stream and changes direction towards ENE following a small drainage channel (registered in the Tuscan Regional database as GID 195830; IDRETLR79 TS21273) which starts immediately west of the road linking the Finestrina and Laugnano villas. The boundary climbs north to the source of the drainage channel, reaching 207 metres above sea level and meeting the private road linking the Finestrina and Laugnano villas.

Here it bends at an angle of nearly 90 degrees and continues parallel to the road, on the west side, in a NNE direction for approximately 110 metres until a few metres before spot elevation 239,4 where it again turns 90 degrees running east. The boundary continues east for about 250 metres and descends ESE along a small drainage channel (a natural run-off that empties into the Serlate stream, registered in the Tuscan Regional database as GID 195804; IDRETLR79 TS21183) until it reaches 180 metres above sea level.

Continuing at this height in a NNE direction, the boundary reaches another small drainage channel (which starts immediately east of the Laugnano villa, registered in the Tuscan Regional database as GID 195563; IDRETLR79 TS21025) and follows the channel to its confluence with the Serlate.

From this point of confluence, the boundary follows the course of the Serlate in a NNE direction to spot elevation 166,6 where it is joined by a small drainage channel (which starts from the Podernuovo villa and flows west, registered in the Tuscan Regional database as GID 195483; IDRETLR79 TS20950). The boundary follows the drainage channel for about 500 metres going east, and then turns about 90 degrees southwards and ascends the wooded slope of the hill on which stands the La Casella villa. It continues upwards along the divide between the wooded area and the farmland.

Reaching the hilltop, and therefore also the road between La Casella and Podernuovo, the boundary continues towards the Torre villa running south-east, parallel to the road at a distance of 40 metres. Where the road bends approximately 90 degrees south-east, the boundary joins it.

From the Torre villa, the boundary continues for about 140 metres along the municipal Vergelle road which leads to the Vigna winery, continuing SSE between spot elevations 322,6 and 319,5. Immediately above the Vigna winery, at 319,5 metres above sea level, the boundary descends the gently sloping cultivated area to the Traversa dei Monti provincial road (N. 14) at 260 metres above sea level.

It follows the road for about 50 metres NNE and then turns again at a right angle south-east to cross the Asciano-Monte Antico railway line and reach the Asso stream. The boundary then continues along the stream in a NE direction until it reaches the confluence with the Banditelli drainage channel at spot elevation 241,5.

Continuing NE, the boundary follows the drainage channel for about 300 metres and then ascends the slope in a SSE direction to 356,1 metres above sea level, crossing the road between the Mirabello and Mirabellaccio villas.

From this point, the boundary continues south for 580 metres to the confluence of the Pagaccina and Borgasso drainage channels at spot elevation 258,7.

From there, continuing clockwise, the boundary of the production area coincides with the boundary between the administrative territory of the municipality of Montalcino and the territories of the following municipalities: San Quirico d’Orcia, Castiglione d’Orcia, Castel del Piano, Cinigiano, Civitella Paganico, Murlo and Buonconvento, until it rejoins the confluence of the Serlate stream and Sala drainage channel, going north to south.

7.   Main wine grape variety(ies)

Moscato bianco B. – Moscato

8.   Description of the link(s)

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ PDO

The production area of ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ wine is situated in south-east Tuscany, 40 kilometres south of the city of Siena. It is a hilly area demarcated by the valleys of three rivers: the Orcia, Asso and Ombrone. The area rises from a height of about 120 metres to about 650 metres above sea level. The sea lies about 40 kilometres west as the crow flies. The Appenines, running down the centre of Italy, are located to the east.

The climate is Mediterranean, mainly dry. It also has the characteristics of a continental climate due to its location between the sea and the Central Apennines. Rainfall is mostly in the spring and autumn months. The average annual rainfall is about 700 millimetres. Snow is possible in winter above 400 metres. The mid-hill band is not affected by fog, late frost or ground frost and the frequent windy conditions ensure the best conditions for the health of the plants. Throughout the whole plant-growth phase, temperatures are predominantly mild with many clear, sunny days. This is ideal for ensuring that the grapes ripen gradually and fully.

Formed over different geological eras, the Montalcino hill has numerous soil types. These include sandstone, in some places mixed with limestone, Alberese and galestro, as well as soils of varying textures, sometimes tending towards sandy, other times towards clay. Limestone soils, generally low in organic matter and relatively lacking in moisture, enable the Moscato Bianco variety, and the other authorised grape varieties, to develop with a certain constrained vigour and, consequently, limited production. The air-flow and levels of sunshine allow the grapes to reach a perfect state of ripeness in terms of plant health.

For centuries, Montalcino has been known as the home of Moscadello. There are historical references dating back to the fifteenth century. In 1540, the writer Pietro Aretino sent a letter of thanks from Venice to a friend, praising him for the gift of a ‘keg of precious, delicate Moscadello, rounded, light, with that sparkling burst that seems to bite and kick and leaves the lips thirsting for more...’

Documents from the Vatican archives dating back to 1591 show that Moscadello was produced by share-croppers on the properties belonging to the Abbey of Sant’Antimo. In the early decades of the 17th century, Pope Urban VIII praised it ‘for its vigour and flavour’ and very discerningly ‘often used to request it for himself and his Court’. In the travel books and accounts of famous travellers of the 17th, 18th, and even 19th century, there were frequent admiring references to ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ as being ‘among the finest and most renowned wines of Tuscany’.

There is a famous quote from Francesco Redi, the doctor and poet from Arezzo, a highly cultured man and distinguished scientist. In 1685, he wrote ‘Bacchus in Tuscany’ in honour of the best wines of his land, joyfully echoing the bacchanalian songs of ancient Greece. Of ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ he sang: ‘Of the charming/divine by nature/Moscadelletto/di Montalcino’.

There are many historical accounts of famous people bearing witness to the value of Moscadello. The most important was the great poet Ugo Foscolo. It was during his time in Florence, on the sunlit hill of Bellosguardo (1812-1813), in the most dramatic period of his life. Suffering economic hardship, surrounded by suspected anti-Bonapartists and rejects from Milanese literary society, Foscolo found relief from literary troubles with a nice glass of ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’, which he proudly offered to his friends.

In appearance, the semi-sparkling wine of PDO ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ is a pale straw-yellow. The colour is a little deeper in the still wine while, in the ‘Late Harvest’ type, it takes on the appearance of yellow shading to gold. On the nose, it has the characteristic balanced and fresh aroma of Moscato, with floral notes where raisined grapes are used. On the palate, the harmony of the sweet and aromatic still wine is pleasantly satisfying. The semi-sparkling has a delightfully fresh foam, while the ‘Late Harvest’ type has a pleasing roundness. The still and semi-sparkling wines of ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ are to be drunk young, while the ‘Late Harvest’ type can be kept for some years.

It is excellent at the end of a meal, served in medium-sized glasses at temperatures of between 10 and 12 °C, making a pleasant accompaniment to pastries and confectionery. It is also very good with blue cheese. In cooking, it can be used as the basis for sweet sauces to serve with elegant dishes.

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

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Bottling within the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

| — | Decree 8/6/2010 |
| --- | --- |

—

Decree 8/6/2010

| — | Ministerial Decree 30/11/2011 |
| --- | --- |

—

Ministerial Decree 30/11/2011

| — | Vinification within the demarcated area |
| --- | --- |

—

Vinification within the demarcated area

Vinification, storage, ageing in wood, bottle ageing and bottling must be carried out within the production area in accordance with the product specification.

‘Moscadello di Montalcino’

Legal framework:

In national legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

Wines with the controlled designation of origin ‘Moscadello di Montalcino’ must be made available for consumption in glass bottles with one of the following capacities: 0,375 litres, 0,5 litres, 0,75 litres, 1,5 litres, 3 litres, 5 litres.

Bottle closures can be any of the types permitted in the legislation in force, with the exception of crown caps.

Link to the product specification

https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/16136

---

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

---