# Official Journal C 379/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 379 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6310 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 379

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6310 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 379/01 | Communication from the Commission — Commission Interpretative Communication on the preparation, audit and publication of the financial statements included in the annual financial reports drawn up in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) | 1 |
| 2020/C 379/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9434 — UTC/Raytheon) (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2020/C 379/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9861 — Unilabs/Medbase/JV) (
  1
  ) | 9 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 379/01

Communication from the Commission — Commission Interpretative Communication on the preparation, audit and publication of the financial statements included in the annual financial reports drawn up in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF)

1

2020/C 379/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9434 — UTC/Raytheon) (
  1
  )

1

8

2020/C 379/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9861 — Unilabs/Medbase/JV) (
  1
  )

1

9

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 379/04 | Euro exchange rates — 9 November 2020 | 10 |
| 2020/C 379/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers 20 August 2019 Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy Rapporteur: Denmark | 11 |
| 2020/C 379/06 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer E.ON/Innogy (Case M.8870) | 14 |
| 2020/C 379/07 | Summary of Commission Decision of 17 September 2019 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy)
  (notified under document C(2019) 6530) | 16 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2020/C 379/08 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 21 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 379/04

Euro exchange rates — 9 November 2020

10

2020/C 379/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers 20 August 2019 Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy Rapporteur: Denmark

11

2020/C 379/06

Final Report of the Hearing Officer E.ON/Innogy (Case M.8870)

14

2020/C 379/07

Summary of Commission Decision of 17 September 2019 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy)
  (notified under document C(2019) 6530)

(notified under document C(2019) 6530)

16

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2020/C 379/08

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

21

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 379/09 | 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 | 22 |
| 2020/C 379/10 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the 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

2020/C 379/09

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

22

2020/C 379/10

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the 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

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigendum to Open call for proposals – GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/002/20 – ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise in Vocational Education and Training (VET) ( OJ C 327, 5.10.2020 ) | 34 |

Corrigenda

Corrigendum to Open call for proposals – GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/002/20 – ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise in Vocational Education and Training (VET) ( OJ C 327, 5.10.2020 )

( OJ C 327, 5.10.2020 )

34

---

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

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/1

---

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Commission Interpretative Communication on the preparation, audit and publication of the financial statements included in the annual financial reports drawn up in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF)

(2020/C 379/01)

1.   Introduction

The aim of this Interpretative Communication is to clarify certain existing provisions of Union law about the preparation, auditing and publication of the financial statements drawn up in accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 (ESEF Regulation) (1). These EU provisions stem from Directive 2004/109/EC (2) as amended by Directive 2013/50/EU (Transparency Directive), Directive 2006/43/EC (3) as amended by Directive 2014/56/EU (Audit Directive), and Directive 2013/34/EU (Accounting Directive) (4).

Statements and opinions provided in this document reflect the view of the European Commission. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, the Court of Justice has the sole jurisdiction to interpret the acts of the institutions of the European Union.

The ESEF Regulation has introduced a single electronic reporting format for the annual financial reports of issuers with securities listed on the EU regulated markets. It sets out general rules on the format of the annual financial reports as defined in Article 4(2) of the Transparency Directive (5), and more specific rules on the marking-up of the financial statements included therein. It does not apply to the half-yearly financial reports as defined in Article 5 of the Transparency Directive.

The ESEF Regulation sets out the following main requirements:

| i) | Issuers shall draw up and disclose their annual financial reports using the eXtensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML) format; |
| --- | --- |

i)

Issuers shall draw up and disclose their annual financial reports using the eXtensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML) format;

| ii) | Issuers that draw up their consolidated financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 (IFRS as endorsed by the EU) (6) or with IFRS as referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 1 of Decision 2008/961/EC (IFRS as adopted by the IASB) (7) shall:






  — | mark-up those consolidated financial statements using inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language (iXBRL); |
| --- | --- | --- |

ii)

Issuers that draw up their consolidated financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 (IFRS as endorsed by the EU) (6) or with IFRS as referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 1 of Decision 2008/961/EC (IFRS as adopted by the IASB) (7) shall:

—

mark-up those consolidated financial statements using inline eXtensible Business Reporting Language (iXBRL);

| — | block-tag the notes to the financial statements (8). |
| --- | --- |

—

block-tag the notes to the financial statements (8).

iXBRL mark-ups shall comply with the ESEF Taxonomy, which is included in the Annexes to the ESEF Regulation and developed based on the IFRS Taxonomy published by the IFRS Foundation.

The combination of the XHTML format with the iXBRL mark-ups makes the annual financial reports both human-readable and machine-readable, thus enhancing accessibility, analysis and comparability of the information included in the annual financial reports.

Once the ESEF Regulation is applicable, only the annual financial reports drawn up in the ESEF format will enable issuers to fulfil their disclosure obligations under the Transparency Directive (9).

The Commission welcomes that several Member States have amended or are amending their national rules to fully comply with ESEF-related requirements in Union law. The Commission encourages all Member States to complete the process where necessary and in due time.

The content of this Communication is relevant to the extent that the ESEF Regulation has entered into application (10).

2.   Clarifications on existing Union provisions concerning audit

2.1.   Are statutory auditors required to provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements included in the annual financial reports comply with the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation?

Union law requires statutory auditors (11) to provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements included in the annual financial reports comply with the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation, i.e. with the provisions of the ESEF Regulation that apply to financial statements.

This conclusion can be drawn from the following legal analysis:

| i. | Pursuant to Article 4(7) of the Transparency Directive, issuers with securities listed on the EU regulated markets shall draw up their annual financial reports in a single electronic reporting format. The requirements for the single electronic reporting format are laid down in the ESEF Regulation, which sets out rules on the format of the annual financial reports as a whole (12), and more specific rules on the marking-up of the financial statements included therein (13). |
| --- | --- |

i.

Pursuant to Article 4(7) of the Transparency Directive, issuers with securities listed on the EU regulated markets shall draw up their annual financial reports in a single electronic reporting format. The requirements for the single electronic reporting format are laid down in the ESEF Regulation, which sets out rules on the format of the annual financial reports as a whole (12), and more specific rules on the marking-up of the financial statements included therein (13).

| ii. | Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive specifies that the issuers’ financial statements shall be audited in accordance with the Accounting Directive (14). Under Article 34(1) of the Accounting Directive, the financial statements of public-interest entities – which include, inter alia, issuers with securities listed on the EU regulated markets (15) – shall be audited by statutory auditors. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive specifies that the issuers’ financial statements shall be audited in accordance with the Accounting Directive (14). Under Article 34(1) of the Accounting Directive, the financial statements of public-interest entities – which include, inter alia, issuers with securities listed on the EU regulated markets (15) – shall be audited by statutory auditors.

| iii. | Under Article 28 of the Audit Directive, statutory auditors shall present the results of their audit in an audit report. This audit report shall include an audit opinion of the statutory auditor as to: (i) whether the financial statements give a true and fair view in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework: and (ii) ‘where appropriate’, whether the financial statements comply with ‘statutory requirements’ (16). |
| --- | --- |

iii.

Under Article 28 of the Audit Directive, statutory auditors shall present the results of their audit in an audit report. This audit report shall include an audit opinion of the statutory auditor as to: (i) whether the financial statements give a true and fair view in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework: and (ii) ‘where appropriate’, whether the financial statements comply with ‘statutory requirements’ (16).

| iv. | The term ‘statutory requirements’ in Article 28(2)(c)(ii) of the Audit Directive means any legal requirement imposed at Union level and/or at national level for the preparation of financial statements. Recital 11 of the ESEF Regulation explicitly states that the requirements provided in the ESEF Regulation constitute ‘statutory requirements’. |
| --- | --- |

iv.

The term ‘statutory requirements’ in Article 28(2)(c)(ii) of the Audit Directive means any legal requirement imposed at Union level and/or at national level for the preparation of financial statements. Recital 11 of the ESEF Regulation explicitly states that the requirements provided in the ESEF Regulation constitute ‘statutory requirements’.

| v. | The term ‘where appropriate’ in Article 28(2)(c)(ii) of the Audit Directive means that where Union and/or national law provides for statutory requirements applicable to the financial statements, statutory auditors shall verify compliance of the latter with these statutory requirements and provide an audit opinion. |
| --- | --- |

v.

The term ‘where appropriate’ in Article 28(2)(c)(ii) of the Audit Directive means that where Union and/or national law provides for statutory requirements applicable to the financial statements, statutory auditors shall verify compliance of the latter with these statutory requirements and provide an audit opinion.

Statutory auditors are therefore required to check the compliance of the financial statements with any applicable statutory requirement, including the relevant statutory requirements set out in the ESEF Regulation as further explained under Question No 2.2 below, and to provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements comply with these requirements.

The policy objectives laid down in the recitals of the Union legal acts regulating the preparation, publication and audit of listed companies’ financial statements support this legal analysis. These policy objectives aim at:

| (i) | enhancing the comparability and public confidence in financial statements (17); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

enhancing the comparability and public confidence in financial statements (17);

| (ii) | ensuring a high level of transparency and comparability of financial reporting from companies with securities listed on the EU regulated markets (18); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

ensuring a high level of transparency and comparability of financial reporting from companies with securities listed on the EU regulated markets (18);

| (iii) | protecting the interests of the company’s third parties (19); |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

protecting the interests of the company’s third parties (19);

| (iv) | ensuring a harmonised approach to statutory auditing (20); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

ensuring a harmonised approach to statutory auditing (20);

| (v) | ensuring a high level of investor protection throughout the Community (21); and |
| --- | --- |

(v)

ensuring a high level of investor protection throughout the Community (21); and

| (vi) | making reporting easier and facilitating accessibility, analysis and comparability of corporate information (22); |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

making reporting easier and facilitating accessibility, analysis and comparability of corporate information (22);

To ensure the integrity of the internal market and a homogeneous level of protection for all users of financial statements and annual financial reports, users should be granted the same level of protection irrespective of how they access the information contained in the financial statements, be it for instance via scanned-paper documents or via electronically structured documents.

2.2.   Which statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation should statutory auditors check compliance with in order to provide their audit opinion?

In order to provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements comply with the ‘relevant statutory requirements’ laid down therein, statutory auditors shall check the compliance of the issuers’ financial statements with the provisions of the ESEF Regulation that are applicable to the financial statements (23). The ‘relevant statutory requirements’ are the following:

| i) | All the financial statements that are included in the annual financial report shall be prepared in a valid XHTML format (24); |
| --- | --- |

i)

All the financial statements that are included in the annual financial report shall be prepared in a valid XHTML format (24);

| ii) | For all consolidated financial statements that are drawn up in accordance with IFRS as endorsed by the EU or with IFRS as adopted by the IASB (25);






  — | The disclosures specified in Annex II of the ESEF Regulation shall be marked-up, where those disclosures are present in those consolidated financial statements; |
| --- | --- | --- |

ii)

For all consolidated financial statements that are drawn up in accordance with IFRS as endorsed by the EU or with IFRS as adopted by the IASB (25);

—

The disclosures specified in Annex II of the ESEF Regulation shall be marked-up, where those disclosures are present in those consolidated financial statements;

| — | All mark-ups, including the voluntary mark-ups of disclosures other than those specified in Annex II, shall meet the following requirements:






  — | the XBRL mark-up language shall be used; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

All mark-ups, including the voluntary mark-ups of disclosures other than those specified in Annex II, shall meet the following requirements:

—

the XBRL mark-up language shall be used;

| — | the elements of the core taxonomy specified in Annex VI of the ESEF Regulation with the closest accounting meaning shall be used, unless an extension taxonomy element is created in compliance with Annex IV of the ESEF Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the elements of the core taxonomy specified in Annex VI of the ESEF Regulation with the closest accounting meaning shall be used, unless an extension taxonomy element is created in compliance with Annex IV of the ESEF Regulation;

| — | the mark-ups shall comply with the common rules on mark-ups (26). |
| --- | --- |

—

the mark-ups shall comply with the common rules on mark-ups (26).

| iii) | For financial statements other than the IFRS consolidated financial statements (27):






  — | All mark-ups included by the issuer on a voluntary basis or in compliance with national law shall meet the following requirements:






  — | the XBRL mark-up language shall be used; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

iii)

For financial statements other than the IFRS consolidated financial statements (27):

—

All mark-ups included by the issuer on a voluntary basis or in compliance with national law shall meet the following requirements:

—

the XBRL mark-up language shall be used;

| — | a specific taxonomy provided by the Member State in which the issuer is incorporated shall be used; |
| --- | --- |

—

a specific taxonomy provided by the Member State in which the issuer is incorporated shall be used;

| — | the mark-ups shall comply with the common rules on mark-ups (28). |
| --- | --- |

—

the mark-ups shall comply with the common rules on mark-ups (28).

2.3.   Shall the audit opinion on whether the financial statements comply with the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation be included in the audit report or in a separate report?

The audit opinion on whether the financial statements comply with the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation shall be included in the audit report.

Under Article 28 of the Audit Directive, statutory auditors shall present the results of their audit in an audit report. Article 28(2)(c)(ii) specifies that the audit report shall include an audit opinion on whether the financial statements give a true and fair view in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework, as well as an opinion on whether the financial statements comply with the applicable ‘statutory requirements’. In this case, the ‘statutory requirements’ correspond to the ‘relevant statutory requirements’ laid down in the ESEF Regulation (see reply to Question No 2.2).

2.4.   Shall the audit report be included in the ESEF-compliant annual financial report or in a separate document disclosed together with the ESEF-compliant annual financial report?

Existing Union law does not specify whether the audit report should be included in the annual financial report or disclosed together with the annual financial report as a separate document.

Under Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive, the audit report ‘shall be disclosed in full to the public together with the annual financial report’. In the absence of specific rules in force at national/regulated market level, and taking into consideration the technical possibilities on a case-by-case basis, issuers may apply their preferred option.

2.5.   Are third-country issuers required to disclose an audit report that includes an audit opinion on whether the financial statements within the annual financial reports comply with the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation?

Under the Transparency Directive, third-country issuers are required to disclose annual financial reports drawn up in accordance with all the requirements in the ESEF Regulation, together with an audit report prepared in accordance with the Audit Directive. As a result, it is the responsibility of a third-country issuer to ensure that its auditors provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements included in the annual financial report comply with the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation.

Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive stipulates that the financial statements to be published within the annual financial reports of any issuer (including third-country issuers) shall be audited in accordance with Articles 34(1), 34(2), and 35 of the Accounting Directive (which cross-refers to Article 28 of the Audit Directive). These provisions refer to the auditors’ obligation to audit the financial statements, and to the content of the audit report, respectively (29). The content of the audit report shall comply with Article 28 of the Audit Directive, which requires the auditor to provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements comply with statutory requirements, including the relevant statutory requirements laid down in the ESEF Regulation.

3.   Clarifications on Union provisions concerning the use of an e-signature

3.1.   Shall issuers and/or statutory auditors use an electronic signature (‘e-signature’) for signing the annual financial reports and/or the documents included therein and/or the audit reports, respectively?

Existing Union law does not prevent issuers or statutory auditors from using an e-signature for signing the annual financial reports, documents included therein or the audit reports respectively. In the absence of specific rules in force at national/regulated market level, issuers and/or statutory auditors may apply their preferred option including a handwritten or an e-signature.

While Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive explicitly requires issuers to disclose an audit report that is signed by the auditors responsible for auditing the financial statements (30), there is no explicit requirement at Union level as regards whether and how to sign the annual financial reports or documents included therein. However, requirements applying to signatures might be set out in national legislation.

In any case, in line with Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 (e-IDAS Regulation) (31) – which specifies that ‘a qualified electronic signature shall have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature’ – the use of a qualified e-signature for signing these reports shall be considered as fulfilling any signature obligation.

4.   Clarifications on Union provisions concerning the issuers’ responsibility and liability

4.1.   Is the administrative, management or supervisory body of the issuer responsible for the compliance of the annual financial reports with the requirements of the ESEF regulation?

The issuer’s administrative, management or supervisory body is responsible for drawing up and disclosing the annual financial reports in compliance with the ESEF Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 7 of the Transparency Directive, the responsibility for the information to be drawn up and made public in accordance with – inter alia – Article 4 of the Transparency Directive ‘lies at least with the issuer or its administrative, management or supervisory bodies’. Article 4(7) of the Transparency Directive requires that annual financial reports are prepared and disclosed in compliance with the ESEF Regulation.

4.2.   Are issuers required to include in their annual financial report a responsibility statement regarding the compliance of the annual financial report with the ESEF Regulation?

Union law does not prevent issuers from expressing, on a voluntary basis, for instance in the responsibility statement within the annual financial report, a specific statement regarding the compliance of the annual financial report with the ESEF Regulation.

Article 4(2)(c) of the Transparency Directive requires that the annual financial report comprises ‘statements made by the persons responsible within the issuer, whose names and functions shall be clearly indicated, to the effect that, to the best of their knowledge, the financial statements prepared in accordance with the applicable set of accounting standards give a true and fair view [...]’. In the absence of specific rules in force at national/regulated market level, issuers may apply their preferred option. In any case, the administrative, management or supervisory body of the issuer is responsible for drawing up and disclosing an ESEF-compliant annual financial report pursuant to Article 7 of the Transparency Directive (see also Question No 4.1).

4.3.   Are issuers allowed to disclose additional versions of the annual financial report that are not ESEF-compliant and/or that include ESEF-compliant financial statements for which the ESEF compliance was not checked by the statutory auditors?

Union law does not prevent issuers from disclosing (for instance on their website) additional versions of their annual financial reports that are non-ESEF compliant or that include ESEF-compliant financial statements for which compliance with ESEF was not checked by the statutory auditors (32). However, it should be made clear that these additional non-ESEF compliant versions of the annual financial reports constitute non-official versions.

Article 4 of the Transparency Directive requires issuers to disclose annual financial reports prepared in accordance with the ESEF Regulation. Once the ESEF Regulation becomes applicable, only the disclosure of ESEF-compliant annual financial reports – together with the audit report on the financial statements included in the annual financial reports – will enable the issuers to fulfil their disclosure obligations under the Transparency Directive. Disclosing (for instance on the issuers’ website) additional non-ESEF compliant versions of the annual financial report that is not ESEF-compliant and/or that includes non-audited ESEF-compliant financial statements is not prohibited by Union law, but is not enough to comply with the Transparency Directive.

5.   Clarifications on Union provisions concerning the use of ESEF files to fulfil other Union obligations

5.1.   Are issuers allowed to file ESEF-compliant financial statements with the national Business Register in order to comply with the Accounting Directive publication rules?

In the case of a limited liability company with securities listed on the EU regulated markets, Union law does not prohibit the use of the audited financial statements prepared and published in accordance with the ESEF Regulation to fulfil legal obligations other than the ones stemming from the Transparency Directive. Union law therefore does not prevent the implementation of national and/or administrative rules that would allow issuers to file the ESEF-compliant financial statements as accounting documents with a Business Register.

Article 30(1) of the Accounting Directive requires limited liability companies to publish their audited financial statements within 12 months after the balance sheet date, and cross-refers to Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Company Law Directive) as regards the rules for the publication. Article 16 of the Company Law Directive – which applies to limited liability companies regardless of whether their securities are listed on the EU regulated markets – requires companies to submit the accounting documents to the national Business Register.

Neither the Accounting Directive nor the Company Law Directive specify the format for drawing up and submitting the audited financial statements, which can be electronic. There is in principle no obstacle for Member States to allow limited liability companies with securities listed on the EU regulated markets to file ESEF-compliant financial statements with the Business Register in order to fulfil their obligations under Article 30(1) of the Accounting Directive and Article 16 of the Company Law Directive.

6.   Clarifications on Union provisions concerning the Officially Appointed Mechanisms

6.1.   Are the Officially Appointed Mechanisms allowed to disseminate annual financial reports in formats other than ESEF?

The Officially Appointed Mechanisms (OAMs) are required to disseminate at least the ESEF-compliant annual financial reports submitted by the issuers.

Article 21 of the Transparency Directive requires Member States to establish OAMs for the central storage and the provision of easy access to end users.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 of 17 December 2018 supplementing Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the specification of a single electronic reporting format (OJ L 143, 29.5.2019, p. 1). This Delegated Regulation supplements Article 4(7) of Directive 2004/109/EC as amended by Directive 2013/50/EU.

(2)  Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, p. 38), as amended by Directive 2013/50/EU.

(3)  Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87).

(4)  Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19).

(5)  Article 4(2) specifies that annual financial reports comprise the audited financial statements, the management report, and the issuer’s responsibility statements.

(6)  Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards (OJ L 243, 11.9.2002, p. 1) (IAS Regulation).

(7)  2008/961/EC: Commission Decision of 12 December 2008 on the use by third countries’ issuers of securities of certain third countries’ national accounting standards and International Financial Reporting Standards to prepare their consolidated financial statements (OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 112).

(8)  This requirement will be phased in according to Annex II of the ESEF Regulation.

(9)  The Transparency Directive sets out disclosure requirements for all ‘regulated information’, a category that also includes the annual financial reports. In addition, Pursuant to Article 9(12) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market, and repealing Directive 2003/71/EC (OJ L 168, 30.6.2017, p. 12) (Prospectus Regulation), issuers may include their annual financial reports in their Universal Registration Document (URD). These issuers can be deemed to have fulfilled their obligation to publish their annual financial report under the Transparency Directive only if certain conditions are met. These conditions include, inter alia, that the annual financial report included in the URD complies with the requirements under Article 4 of the Transparency Directive (including ESEF).

(10)  See Article 8 of ESEF Regulation.

(11)  Any reference to ‘statutory auditors’ in this document shall be construed as a reference to ‘statutory auditors or audit firms’.

(12)  See Article 3 of the ESEF Regulation.

(13)  See Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the ESEF Regulation.

(14)  Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive cross-refers to Articles 51 and 51a of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11)and to Article 37 of the Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC (OJ L 193, 18.7.1983, p. 1), now repealed by the Accounting Directive (the corresponding provisions are Articles 34(1), 34(2), and 35 of the Accounting Directive).

(15)  See Article 2(1)(a) of the Accounting Directive.

(16)  See Article 28(2)(c)(ii) of the Audit Directive, which applies not only to individual financial statements but also to consolidated financial statements (as specified in paragraph 5 of the same Article).

(17)  Recital 55 of the Accounting Directive.

(18)  Recital 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002.

(19)  Recital 7 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law (OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 46) (Company Law Directive).

(20)  Recital 3 of the Audit Directive.

(21)  Recital 7 of the Transparency Directive.

(22)  Recital 26 of Directive 2013/50/EU (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 13) amending the Transparency Directive and recital 4 of the ESEF Regulation.

(23)  Guidance on how to check compliance with the relevant statutory requirements in the ESEF Regulation is included in the Guidelines on the auditors’ involvement on financial statements in European Single Electronic Format developed by the Committee of European Auditing Oversight Bodies, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/191128-ceaob-guidelines-auditors-involvement-financial-statements_en

(24)  Article 3 of the ESEF Regulation - which requires the preparation of the entire annual financial report in XHTML format - shall be read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the Transparency Directive - which specifies that the annual financial report shall comprise inter alia the audited financial statements. A free validator for XHTML documents is available at http://validator.w3.org/

(25)  See Article 4 of the ESEF Regulation.

(26)  See Article 6 of the ESEF Regulation.

(27)  See Article 5 of the ESEF Regulation. These rules apply to issuers incorporated in Member States.

(28)  See Article 6 of the ESEF Regulation.

(29)  Article 4(4) of the Transparency Directive cross-refers to Articles 51 and 51a of Directive 78/660/EEC and to Article 37 of Directive 83/349/EEC. Both Directives were repealed by the Accounting Directive in 2013. According to the correlation table, the references to these Articles of the repealed Directives shall be construed as references to Articles 34(1), 34(2), and 35 of the Accounting Directive.

(30)  Article 28(4) of the Audit Directive also states that the audit report shall be signed and dated by the statutory auditor.

(31)  Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).

(32)  These additional versions may include – for instance – annual financial reports prepared in a format different than ESEF or prepared in the ESEF format but that include a non-audited version of ESEF-compliant financial statements (e.g. in the case of ESEF-compliant annual financial reports published in a language different from the one in which the ESEF-compliant financial statements were audited).

---

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9434 — UTC/Raytheon)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 379/02)

On 13 March 2020, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32020M9434. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9434. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9861 — Unilabs/Medbase/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 379/03)

On 4 November 2020, 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 32020M9861. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9861. EUR-Lex is the on-line 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

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 November 2020

(2020/C 379/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1883 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4476 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90224 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1970 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0778 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 163,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,7101 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,475 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 356,98 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4670 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8655 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,5786 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6234 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5388 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2128 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7378 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5950 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 321,43 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,1305 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8475 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5640 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 710,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8821 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,213 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 90,1763 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,101 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,2447 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,8949 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,6380 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1883

JPY

Japanese yen

124,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4476

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90224

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1970

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0778

ISK

Iceland króna

163,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,7101

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,475

HUF

Hungarian forint

356,98

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4670

RON

Romanian leu

4,8655

TRY

Turkish lira

9,5786

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6234

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5388

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2128

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7378

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5950

KRW

South Korean won

1 321,43

ZAR

South African rand

18,1305

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8475

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5640

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 710,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8821

PHP

Philippine peso

57,213

RUB

Russian rouble

90,1763

THB

Thai baht

36,101

BRL

Brazilian real

6,2447

MXN

Mexican peso

23,8949

INR

Indian rupee

87,6380

---

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

---

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/11

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers

20 August 2019

Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy

Rapporteur: Denmark

(2020/C 379/05)

Jurisdiction

| 1. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’) (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Product market definition

| 3. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the conclusions reached by the Commission in the draft Decision in relation to the definition of the relevant product markets for:






  a. | The generation and wholesale supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia and Hungary. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

a.

The generation and wholesale supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia and Hungary.

| b. | Distribution of electricity in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Distribution of electricity in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary.

| c. | Retail supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Retail supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom.

| d. | Retail supply of heating electricity in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

d.

Retail supply of heating electricity in Germany.

| e. | Downstream wholesale supply of gas in Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

e.

Downstream wholesale supply of gas in Czechia.

| f. | Distribution of gas in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

f.

Distribution of gas in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary.

| g. | Retail supply of gas in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

g.

Retail supply of gas in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom.

| h. | Metering in Germany, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

h.

Metering in Germany, and the United Kingdom.

| i. | E-mobility in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

i.

E-mobility in Germany.

| j. | Street lighting in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

j.

Street lighting in Hungary.

Geographic market definition

| 4. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the conclusions reached by the Commission in the draft Decision in relation to the definition of the relevant geographic markets for:






  a. | The generation and wholesale supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia and Hungary. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

a.

The generation and wholesale supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia and Hungary.

| b. | Distribution of electricity in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Distribution of electricity in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary.

| c. | Retail supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Retail supply of electricity in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom.

| d. | Retail supply of heating electricity in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

d.

Retail supply of heating electricity in Germany.

| e. | Downstream wholesale supply of gas in Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

e.

Downstream wholesale supply of gas in Czechia.

| f. | Distribution of gas in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

f.

Distribution of gas in Germany, Czechia, and Hungary.

| g. | Retail supply of gas in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

g.

Retail supply of gas in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom.

| h. | Metering in Germany, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

h.

Metering in Germany, and the United Kingdom.

| i. | E-mobility in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

i.

E-mobility in Germany.

| j. | Street lighting in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

j.

Street lighting in Hungary.

Competitive assessment

| 5. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified transaction would significantly impede effective competition as a result of horizontal non-coordinated effects in:






  a. | Retail supply of heating electricity to households and SMEs in Germany. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

a.

Retail supply of heating electricity to households and SMEs in Germany.

| b. | Installation and operation of public EV CS on motorways in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Installation and operation of public EV CS on motorways in Germany.

| c. | Retail supply of electricity to customers connected to the low-voltage network in the Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Retail supply of electricity to customers connected to the low-voltage network in the Czechia.

| d. | Retail supply of gas to small customers in Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

d.

Retail supply of gas to small customers in Czechia.

| e. | Retail supply of gas to large customers in Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

e.

Retail supply of gas to large customers in Czechia.

| f. | Retail supply of electricity to Competitive-SME customers in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

f.

Retail supply of electricity to Competitive-SME customers in Hungary.

| g. | Retail supply of electricity to large industrial customers in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

g.

Retail supply of electricity to large industrial customers in Hungary.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified transaction would not significantly impede effective competition as a result of horizontal non-coordinated effects in the following affected markets:






  a. | Retail supply of electricity in Slovakia. 6 Member States voted in favour. 2 Member States abstained. 1 Member State voted against. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

a.

Retail supply of electricity in Slovakia. 6 Member States voted in favour. 2 Member States abstained. 1 Member State voted against.

| b. | Retail supply of gas in Slovakia. 7 Member States voted in favour. 2 Member States abstained. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Retail supply of gas in Slovakia. 7 Member States voted in favour. 2 Member States abstained.

| c. | Retail supply of gas in the United Kingdom. 9 Member States voted in favour. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Retail supply of gas in the United Kingdom. 9 Member States voted in favour.

| d. | Metering services for energy (electricity and gas) in the United Kingdom. 9 Member States voted in favour. |
| --- | --- |

d.

Metering services for energy (electricity and gas) in the United Kingdom. 9 Member States voted in favour.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified transaction would not significantly impede effective competition as a result of non-horizontal effects in:






  a. | Any of the markets vertically affected in Germany. |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

a.

Any of the markets vertically affected in Germany.

| b. | Any of the markets vertically affected in Czechia. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Any of the markets vertically affected in Czechia.

| c. | Any of the markets vertically affected in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

c.

Any of the markets vertically affected in Hungary.

| d. | Any of the markets vertically affected in Slovakia. |
| --- | --- |

d.

Any of the markets vertically affected in Slovakia.

| e. | Any of the markets vertically affected in the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

e.

Any of the markets vertically affected in the United Kingdom.

Commitments

| 8. | The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the final commitments offered by the Notifying Party on 3 July 2019 remove the significant impediment to effective competition identified in the draft Decision. |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments offered by the Notifying Party on 3 July 2019, the notified transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. 8 Member States voted in favour. 1 Member State voted against. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction must therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. 8 Member States voted in favour. 1 Member State voted against.
  I hereby confirm that Ireland, Slovenia and United Kingdom participated in this Advisory Committee meeting via videoconferencing link and asked me to sign the Opinion of the Advisory Committee on their behalf. |
| --- | --- |

10.

I hereby confirm that Ireland, Slovenia and United Kingdom participated in this Advisory Committee meeting via videoconferencing link and asked me to sign the Opinion of the Advisory Committee on their behalf.

Patrick LINDBERG

Chair of the Advisory Committee meeting

---

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

1

---

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/14

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

E.ON/Innogy

(Case M.8870)

(2020/C 379/06)

1.

On 31 January 2019 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) by which E.ON SE (‘E.ON’, Germany) will acquire sole control over the distribution and consumer solutions business and certain electricity generation assets of innogy SE (‘Innogy’, Germany) (the ‘Proposed Transaction’) (3).

2.

On 7 March 2019, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (the ‘Article 6(1)(c) Decision’). In that decision, the Commission concluded that the Proposed Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as a result of horizontal non-coordinated effects on various retail supply markets for electricity and gas in Czechia, Germany, Hungary and Slovakia.

3.

On 20 March 2019, E.ON submitted its response to the Article 6(1)(c) Decision.

4.

On 25 and 29 March 2019, following failures by E.ON and Innogy to provide complete information in response to information requests, the Commission adopted two decisions pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation, the first one addressed to E.ON and the second one addressed to E.ON and Innogy. These decisions suspended the time limits referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation. E.ON (jointly with Innogy as regards the decision addressed to both E.ON and Innogy) submitted complete responses on 5 and 11 April 2019, respectively. The first suspension accordingly lasted from 22 March to the end of 11 April 2019.

5.

On 30 April 2019, following a failure by RWE and Innogy to provide complete information in response to an information request, the Commission adopted another decision pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation. This decision likewise suspended the time limits referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation. Innogy submitted a complete response on 8 May 2019, and this second suspension accordingly lasted from 29 April to the end of 8 May 2019.

6.

Between 7 February and 14 May 2019, I admitted 18 companies active in the same or related markets as interested third persons pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 2011/695/EU. The Commission had several interactions with these persons during the procedure, both orally and in writing, which allowed them to express their views on the Proposed Transaction, in accordance with Article 16(1) of the Merger Implementing Regulation (4).

7.

On 7 June 2019, the Commission extended the time period for adopting a final decision by 20 working days in accordance with Article 10(3), second subparagraph, third sentence, of the Merger Regulation.

8.

On 20 June 2019, E.ON submitted a first formal set of proposed commitments to the Commission, which the Commission market-tested on 21 June 2019. On 3 July 2019, E.ON submitted revised commitments to the Commission, taking into account the feedback received from the market test (the ‘Final Commitments’).

9.

The Commission did not issue a statement of objections pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Merger Implementing Regulation (5). There was therefore no formal oral hearing in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation.

10.

On 7 August 2019, the Hearing Officer rejected a joint request by two interested third persons to grant them access to the Commission’s reasoning, preliminary conclusions of the investigation and its intended decision, under application of Article 7(2)(d) and (3) of Decision 2011/695/EU. Given the specific interactions with these interested third persons (described more generally in paragraph 6 above), they had been adequately informed about the nature and the subject matter of the procedure and been enabled to effectively exercise their right to make known their views on the harmful effects on them of the notified concentration. The right of interested third persons to be heard does not cover a right to be informed about the Commission’s intended decision or its underlying grounds (6).

11.

In the draft decision, the Commission concludes that the Final Commitments remove the significant impediments to effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it to which the Proposed Transaction would otherwise have given rise. As a result, the draft decision declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, subject to full compliance with the Final Commitments.

12.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings.

Brussels, 5 September 2019.

Joos STRAGIER

---

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

1

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

2

(3)  Innogy is currently controlled by RWE AG (‘RWE’, Germany). The Proposed Transaction is part of a complex asset swap between RWE and E.ON. In a separate case (Case M.8871), RWE notified to the Commission the proposed acquisition of joint or sole control over certain generation assets of E.ON, which acquisition was approved by the Commission without conditions on 26 February 2019.

3

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1) (the ‘Merger Implementing Regulation’).

4

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1; corrigendum OJ L 172, 6.5.2004, p. 9).

5

(6)  See judgment in Kaysersberg v Commission, T-290/94, EU:T:1997:186, paras. 105-109.

6

Kaysersberg

Commission

---

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/16

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 17 September 2019

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

(Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy)

(notified under document C(2019) 6530)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2020/C 379/07)

On 17 September 2019
  the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1)
  , and in particular Article 8(2) of that Regulation. A non‐confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the case on the website of the Directorate‐General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html

I.   THE PARTIES

| (1) | On 31 January 2019, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration (‘the Concentration’), pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation, by which E.ON SE (‘E.ON’, Germany) will acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control over the distribution and consumer solutions business and certain electricity generation assets of Innogy SE (‘Innogy’, Germany) (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | E.ON is an energy company active across the supply chain, including generation, wholesale supply, transmission, distribution, retail supply and energy-related activities (such as metering, e-mobility, etc.). E.ON is active in several Member States, including Sweden, Romania, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

| (3) | Innogy, a wholly owned subsidiary of RWE, is an energy company active across the supply chain, including distribution, retail supply and energy-related activities (such as metering, e-mobility, etc.). Innogy is active in several Member States, including Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | E.ON is hereinafter referred to as ‘The Notifying Party’ and together with Innogy as ‘the Parties’. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

II.   THE OPERATION

| (5) | The Concentration consists in the acquisition of sole control of Innogy by E.ON. The Concentration is to be accomplished by way of a purchase of shares. The Concentration is part of an extensive asset swap between E.ON and RWE as the result of which E.ON will be primarily active in the operation of electricity and gas distribution networks as well as retail supply in various European countries. RWE will focus on the generation and wholesale activities. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | E.ON would acquire the energy distribution network and customer solutions operations of RWE’s subsidiary, Innogy, as well as certain minor electricity generation assets, mainly combined heat and power (CHP) plants held by Innogy (‘the Reverse Carve-Out Assets’). RWE would acquire most of E.ON’s electricity generation business from renewable energy sources and minority stakes in two already RWE-operated nuclear power plants. In addition, RWE would retain (a) Innogy’s renewable generation assets (with the exception the Reverse Carve-Out Assets), (b) Innogy’s 49 % stake in Kärntner Energieholding Beteiligungs GmbH and (c) eleven gas storage facilities operated by Innogy in Germany and Czechia (all these assets together make up the Re-Transfer-Assets). RWE would also acquire a pure financial minority shareholding in E.ON. The acquisition of the E.ON Assets by RWE was cleared by the Commission by decision of 26 February 2019, COMP/M.8871 – RWE/E.ON Transfer Assets. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | The two parts of the asset swap give rise two separate concentrations. This Decision concerns the concentration that would arise from E.ON’s acquisition of control of Innogy. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

| (8) | The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million. Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million, but they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The notified operation therefore has an EU dimension. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

III.   THE PROCEDURE

| (9) | The Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Concentration with the internal market and adopted a Decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 7 March 2019. E.ON submitted its written comments to the Article 6(1)(c) Decision on 20 March 2019, supplemented on 8 May 2019 and 20 May 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

| (10) | The time limit for adopting a final decision in this case was suspended twice, on 22 March 2019 (until 11 April 2019) and 29 April 2019 (until 8 May 2019) in accordance with Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

| (11) | At the request of the Parties, on 7 June 2019, the time limit for adopting a final decision in this case was extended by a further 20 working days in accordance with Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | To address the preliminary competition concerns identified by the Commission and following detailed discussions, the Parties submitted to the Commission draft commitments on 20 June 2019 (‘Phase II commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

| (13) | On 21 June 2019 the Commission launched a market test to assess whether the Phase II commitments would be suitable to address the competition concerns expressed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | On 4 July 2019 the Parties submitted final commitments (‘Final Commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

IV.   SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

| (15) | The Parties’ activities overlap in several countries, but the main overlaps take place in Germany, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia and the UK (3). Within each of these countries, significant horizontal overlaps take place in some of the activities of the Parties. These are summarised in the following. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

1.   Germany

1.1.   Market definitions

| (16) | Retail supply of electricity: The Commission typically defines the markets for the retail supply of electricity to end-customers as national in scope, but for Germany it has also considered a narrower definition (at the distribution network level (DSO)) in the past. For the purposes of this Decision, the Commission maintains the national scope for large customers and concludes, based on its market investigation and in line with the market definition adopted by the German Federal Cartel Office, that (i) the geographic market for the retail supply of regular electricity to households and small commercial customers under basic supply is local, restricted to the relevant basic supply area; and (ii) the geographic market for the retail supply of regular electricity to households and small commercial customers under special contracts is national. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | Retail supply of heating electricity: The Commission’s investigation found that several elements support a national market definition as well as elements pointing to local competitive dynamics. Therefore, for the purposes of this Decision, the geographic scope of the market for retail supply of heating electricity to households and SMEs in Germany is left open as to whether it is national with strong elements of regional competition at network area level or local. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | Retail supply of gas: The Commission found, based on its assessment, that the structure and functioning of the market for the retail supply of gas is very similar to the market for the retail supply of electricity. Therefore, the Commission considers the same geographic market definition for the retail supply of gas as for electricity. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

| (19) | E-mobility: For the purpose of this Decision, the Commission considers (i) the wholesale supply of Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations (CS), to be national or EEA wide in scope (left open), (ii) the retail supply of private EV Charging Stations to be national in scope, (iii) the market for installation and operation of public EV Charging Stations on-motorways to be local or national with local elements (left open) (iv) the market for installation and operation of public EV Charging Stations off-motorways local or national with local elements (left open), (v) the market for subscription services for public EV Charging Stations to be national in scope and (vi) white-label services for public EV Charging Stations to be national in scope. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

1.2.   Competitive assessment

| (20) | The Commission assessed the affected markets as described above. The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Concentration will lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the following markets. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

| (a) | In the market for the retail supply of heating electricity in Germany: The Commission came to its conclusion, because the market for heating electricity is a highly concentrated market (the merger combining the two largest suppliers nationally), the Parties exert significant competitive pressure on each other, there are limited credible alternative to the parties and barriers to entry are high. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

| (b) | In the market for the installation and operation of public EV CS on-motorways in Germany the Commission came to its conclusion as it identified CS belonging to the Parties located close to each other where there were no competing EV CS. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

2.   Czechia

2.1.   Market definition

| (21) | Retail supply of electricity: In its decisional practice the Commission has left open whether the geographic scope of the market for the retail supply of electricity is national or narrower in scope in Czechia. For the purposes of this decision the geographic market for the retail supply of electricity to (i) high-voltage customers and (ii) low voltage customers is defined as national in scope, although for the retail supply of electricity to low-voltage customers there are local elements of competition. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

| (22) | Retail supply of gas: In its decisional practice the Commission has left open whether the geographic scope of the market for the retail supply of gas is national or narrower in scope in Czechia. For the purposes of this decision the geographic market for the retail supply of gas to (i) large customers and (ii) small customers is defined as national in scope, although for the retail supply of gas to small customers there are local elements of competition. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

2.2.   Competitive assessment

| (23) | The Commission assessed the affected markets as described above. The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Concentration will lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the following markets.






  (a) | In the market for the retail supply of electricity to low voltage customers in Czechia the Commission came to its conclusion, because of the Parties’ historical incumbency position and the fact that the Parties are close competitors. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(23)

(a)

In the market for the retail supply of electricity to low voltage customers in Czechia the Commission came to its conclusion, because of the Parties’ historical incumbency position and the fact that the Parties are close competitors.

| (b) | In the market for the retail supply of gas to small customers in Czechia the Commission came to its conclusion, because of the high market share, the complementarity of the Parties’ historical incumbency position and the fact that the Parties are close competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In the market for the retail supply of gas to small customers in Czechia the Commission came to its conclusion, because of the high market share, the complementarity of the Parties’ historical incumbency position and the fact that the Parties are close competitors.

| (c) | In the market for the retail supply of gas to large customers in Czechia the Commission came to its conclusion, because of the high market share in a dispersed market where the Parties are close competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

In the market for the retail supply of gas to large customers in Czechia the Commission came to its conclusion, because of the high market share in a dispersed market where the Parties are close competitors.

3.   Hungary

3.1.   Market definition

| (24) | Retail supply of electricity: The Commission has previously defined the market for the retail supply of electricity to businesses in Hungary as national while the retail supply to residential customers has been considered as sub-national in scope (each DSO area). Based on the Commission’s assessment, for the purposes of this Decision, the geographic scope for the retail supply of electricity to residential customers and SME customers serviced by USP offerings is considered as sub-national in scope (DSO area). The geographic scope for the retail supply of electricity to SME customers serviced by competitive offerings and large commercial and industrial customers is considered national. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

3.2.   Competitive assessment

| (25) | The Commission assessed the affected markets as described above. The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Concentration will lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the following markets.






  (a) | In the market for the retail supply of electricity to competitive SME customers in Hungary the Commission came to its conclusion as the merger would eliminate an important competitive constraint in an already highly concentrated market. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(25)

(a)

In the market for the retail supply of electricity to competitive SME customers in Hungary the Commission came to its conclusion as the merger would eliminate an important competitive constraint in an already highly concentrated market.

| (b) | In the market for the retail supply of electricity to large industrial customers in Hungary the Commission came to its conclusion as the Parties are close competitors and the merger would significantly reduce the number of effective competitors in the market. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

In the market for the retail supply of electricity to large industrial customers in Hungary the Commission came to its conclusion as the Parties are close competitors and the merger would significantly reduce the number of effective competitors in the market.

4.   Slovakia

4.1.   Market definition

| (26) | Retail supply of electricity: For the purposes of this decision, the Commission considers that the geographic market for the retail supply of electricity is national in scope, although there are strong regional elements. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

4.2.   Competitive assessment

| (27) | The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Concentration will not lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in Slovakia. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

| (28) | In the three affected market segments for the retail supply of electricity to (i) regulated customers, (ii) small unregulated customers and (iii) large industrial customers in Slovakia, the Commission came to the conclusion that there was no significant impediment to effective competition as the Parties are not close competitors and other suppliers exert a stronger constraint on the Parties than the Parties exert on each other. The Commission also considered whether the Concentration, although not having a significant impact on the current level of competition, may affect competition in the future by leading to a loss of potential competition but the evidence collected during the investigation did not support this conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

5.   UK

5.1.   Market definition

| (29) | Retail supply of electricity to households and large industrial customers: in line with previous decisions, the Commission considers the geographic scope for the retail supply of electricity is Great Britain. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

5.2.   Competitive assessment

| (30) | The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Concentration will not lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the UK. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

| (31) | In the affected market segments for the retail supply of electricity to (i) households and (ii) to large industrial customers in Great Britain, the Commission came to the conclusion that there was no significant impediment to effective competition because of the moderate combined market share of the Parties and the fact that they are not close competitors and that there are several alternative credible competitors active in the markets. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

V.   REMEDIES

| (32) | In order to address the competition concerns identified, the Parties have submitted ‘Final Commitments’, which included modifications to take account of the results of the market test. The Final Commitments are the following: |
| --- | --- |

(32)

| (33) | For heating electricity in Germany: the remedies consist of the divestiture of materially all of EDG’s (main subsidiary of E.ON) special contract customers supplied with electricity for heating purposes. The Final Commitments also include, for customers supplied under separate meters, all corresponding household electricity special contracts relating to the customers supplied with electricity for heating purposes. The divestment will be split in two separate portfolios of customers, to be acquired jointly by one purchaser or separately by two different purchasers. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

| (34) | For the installation and operation of public EV CS on Motorways in Germany: the divestiture consists of E.ON’s obligation to fully terminate the operation of the Discontinued Charging Stations (i.e. the CS in the areas where horizontal overlaps occurred) and not to operate the Discontinued Charging Stations for a predefined period of time. Further, E.ON commits not to operate the Further Discontinued Charging Stations (further charging stations operated by a third party for which E.ON was considering entering an operation agreement) for a predefined period of time. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

| (35) | For the retail supply of gas to both small and large customers as well as the retail supply of electricity to low voltage customers in Czechia: The divestment of the entire electricity and gas retail business of Innogy and its affiliated undertakings in Czechia, combined with most of Innogy’s other activities in Czechia (4). |
| --- | --- |

(35)

| (36) | For the retail supply of electricity to both competitive SME customers and large industrial customers in Hungary: E.ON would divest the entirety of its retail electricity business to competitive SME customers and large industrial customers in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

| (37) | In the Commission’s view the Final Commitments address the identified competition concerns adequately:






  (a) | For heating electricity in Germany: the removal of most of the relevant competitive overlap between the Parties on a national and at local DSO-level and the creation of one or two large supra-regional competitors able to grow and compete effectively with the merged entity. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(37)

(a)

For heating electricity in Germany: the removal of most of the relevant competitive overlap between the Parties on a national and at local DSO-level and the creation of one or two large supra-regional competitors able to grow and compete effectively with the merged entity.

| (b) | For the installation and operation of public EV CS on Motorways in Germany: the divestiture would remove any relevant competitive overlaps between the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

For the installation and operation of public EV CS on Motorways in Germany: the divestiture would remove any relevant competitive overlaps between the Parties.

| (c) | For the retail supply of gas to both small and large customers as well as the retail supply of electricity to low voltage customers in Czechia: the divestiture would remove any relevant competitive overlaps between the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

For the retail supply of gas to both small and large customers as well as the retail supply of electricity to low voltage customers in Czechia: the divestiture would remove any relevant competitive overlaps between the Parties.

| (d) | For the retail supply of electricity to both competitive SME customers and large industrial customers in Hungary: the divestiture would remove any relevant competitive overlaps between the Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

For the retail supply of electricity to both competitive SME customers and large industrial customers in Hungary: the divestiture would remove any relevant competitive overlaps between the Parties.

VI.   CONCLUSION

| (38) | For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission concludes that the proposed concentration as modified by the Commitments and subject to specific conditions, including the Commission's acceptance of suitable purchasers for the divestment businesses, will not significantly impede effective competition in the Internal Market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

| (39) | Consequently the concentration is declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement subject to conditions and obligations, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

---

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

(2)  In a first step, E.ON will acquire the whole of Innogy. In a second step, E.ON will carve-out the majority of Innogy’s renewable electricity generation business, gas storage business and participation in Kärntner Energieholding Beteiligungs GmbH and will transfer these assets back to RWE.

(3)  There are also minor overlaps in Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Austria, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France.

(4)  The gas distribution activities of Innogy in Czechia are envisaged to be transferred to Macquarie and RWE will retain the gas storage activities in Czechia.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2020/C 379/08)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 1.10.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 1.10.2020 - 31.12.2020 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or Group of stocks | LEZ/*8ABDE (special condition to LEZ/07.) |
| Species | Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zone | 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | --- |
| Reference number | 24/TQ123 |

Date and time of closure

1.10.2020

Duration

1.10.2020 - 31.12.2020

Member State

Belgium

Stock or Group of stocks

LEZ/*8ABDE (special condition to LEZ/07.)

Species

Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Zone

8a, 8b, 8d and 8e

Type(s) of fishing vessels

---

Reference number

24/TQ123

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/22

---

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

(2020/C 379/09)

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

COMMUNICATION OF STANDARD AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘MUSCADET CÔTES DE GRANDLIEU’

PDO-FR-A0496-AM02

Date of communication: 15.9.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Geographical area

The reference to the Official Geographic Code has been updated to indicate the year 2020.

The single document is not affected by this amendment.

2.   Demarcated parcel area

In Chapter I, Section IV, point 2 of the specification, the words ‘and 17 June 2020’ have been added after the words ‘20 June 2018’.

The purpose of this amendment is to add the date on which the relevant national authority approved changes to the demarcated parcel area within the geographical area of production. The demarcated parcel area is made up of the parcels within the geographical area of production that have been identified as being suitable for producing the protected designation of origin.

The single document is not affected by this amendment.

3.   Area in immediate proximity

The area in immediate proximity has been revised as a result of municipal mergers that have changed the names of certain municipalities.

Accordingly, the municipalities ‘Saint-Géréon’ and ‘Ancenis’ have been replaced by the municipality ‘Ancenis-Saint-Géréon’. The municipalities ‘Saint-Hilaire-de-Loulay’ and ‘Montaigu’ have been replaced by ‘Montaigu-Vendée (delegated municipalities of Montaigu and Saint-Hilaire-de-Loulay only)’.

This amendment is an editorial amendment which has not changed the area in immediate proximity.

It means point 9 of the single document must be amended.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Name of the product

Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO – Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

The wines are white, dry and still.

They have:

| — | a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 10 %, |
| --- | --- |

—

a minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume of 10 %,

| — | a maximum fermentable sugar content (glucose and fructose) of 3 grams per litre, |
| --- | --- |

—

a maximum fermentable sugar content (glucose and fructose) of 3 grams per litre,

| — | a maximum volatile acid content of 10 milliequivalents per litre, |
| --- | --- |

—

a maximum volatile acid content of 10 milliequivalents per litre,

| — | a maximum total alcoholic strength by volume after enrichment of 12 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

a maximum total alcoholic strength by volume after enrichment of 12 %.

The total acid content, the total sulphur dioxide content and the total actual alcoholic strength comply with the thresholds laid down in EU legislation. The wines are white, dry and still.

They have intense aromas dominated by fruit and sometimes complemented by iodine notes, and a balance of taste which generally tends towards freshness.

Prolonged maturation can give them greater richness in the mouth and make them suitable for ageing.

They are packed carefully in bottles to preserve and strengthen their aromatic richness.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) | |
| Minimum total acidity | |
| 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

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

5.   Winemaking practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

Cultivation method

The minimum planting density of the vines is 6 500 plants per hectare.

The distance between the rows is 1,50 metres or less, and the spacing between plants in the same row is between 0,90 and 1,10 metres.

The vines are pruned with a maximum of 12 count buds per plant:

| — | either by short pruning with a maximum of 5 spurs per plant, |
| --- | --- |

—

either by short pruning with a maximum of 5 spurs per plant,

| — | or by means of simple or double Guyot. |
| --- | --- |

—

or by means of simple or double Guyot.

Pruning is carried out before the budding stage or stage 5 on the Eichhorn and Lorenz scale.

Regardless of the pruning method, the vines can be pruned with four additional count buds per plant on condition that, at the phenological stage corresponding to 11 or 12 leaves, there are no more than 12 fruit-bearing branches for the year per plant.

Oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

Any heat treatment of the wine harvest at a temperature below -5 °C is prohibited.

After enrichment, the wines’ total alcoholic strength by volume must not exceed 12 %.

The wines are aged on their fine winemaking lees at the end of alcoholic fermentation and at least until 1 March of the year following harvest. They remain on their fine winemaking lees at the time of packing or when first dispatched from the winery.

In addition to the above, the oenological practices for these wines must meet the requirements laid down at EU level and in the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code.

b.   Maximum yields

66 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

All stages of the production must take place within the geographical area approved by the National Institute of Origin and Quality at the meeting of the relevant national committee on 15 June 2017. The perimeter of this area, on the date of approval of this specification by the relevant national committee, comprises the territory of the following municipalities or parts of municipalities, based on the 2018 Official Geographic Code:

| — | Department of Loire-Atlantique: Le Bignon (partly), Bouaye, Brains, La Chevrolière, Corcoué-sur-Logne, Geneston, Legé (partly), La Limouzinière, La Planche, Montbert (partly), Pont-Saint-Martin, Port-Saint-Père, Saint-Aignan-Grandlieu, Saint-Colomban, Sainte-Pazanne (partly), Saint-Léger-les-Vignes, Saint-Lumine-de-Coutais, Saint-Mars-de-Coutais, Saint-Philbert-de-Grand-Lieu, Les Sorinières (partly), Vieillevigne (partly). |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Loire-Atlantique: Le Bignon (partly), Bouaye, Brains, La Chevrolière, Corcoué-sur-Logne, Geneston, Legé (partly), La Limouzinière, La Planche, Montbert (partly), Pont-Saint-Martin, Port-Saint-Père, Saint-Aignan-Grandlieu, Saint-Colomban, Sainte-Pazanne (partly), Saint-Léger-les-Vignes, Saint-Lumine-de-Coutais, Saint-Mars-de-Coutais, Saint-Philbert-de-Grand-Lieu, Les Sorinières (partly), Vieillevigne (partly).

| — | Department of Vendée: Rocheservière, Saint-Philbert-de-Bouaine. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Vendée: Rocheservière, Saint-Philbert-de-Bouaine.

7.   Main wine grape variety(-ies)

Melon B

8.   Description of the link(s)

1.   Information on the geographical area

(a)   Description of the natural factors relevant to the link

The winegrowing area of the registered designation of origin ‘Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu’ is primarily situated on the hillsides surrounding the Lac de Grandlieu and on the banks of the rivers feeding it (the Logne, the Boulogne and the Ognon), as well as on the slopes of the river Acheneau, which serves as an outlet and joins the estuary of the Loire between Nantes and Saint-Nazaire. The geographical area covers a part of the territory of the departments of Loire-Atlantique and Vendée, south of the city of Nantes, not far from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. It forms the westernmost part of the geographical area of the ‘Muscadet’ registered designation of origin. The vineyards are situated within ‘islands’ in the best locations, often isolated in a landscape mainly devoted to livestock and crop farming.

The geographical area has a particularly temperate oceanic climate with very small temperature variations throughout the year due to the proximity of the coast. In winter, the Lac de Grandlieu is the largest freshwater body in metropolitan France and helps to make the air milder, greatly reducing the frequency of frost. The absence of any significant hills between the coast and the vineyards favours the rapid circulation of cloud-bearing sea air, thus leading to low rainfall within the geographical area and to more hours of sunshine than further inland. Summer temperatures are generally mild and moisture from the Lac de Grandlieu mitigates the rare heatwaves.

The area’s geological structure is principally composed of metamorphic rocks, mainly mica schists and gneiss, as well as broad bands of basic rocks, amphibolites, eclogites and prasinites. In the lower areas, around the Lac de Grandlieu, the primary base is sometimes covered with tertiary sediments, mainly consisting of sand with a variable proportion of clay and pebbles. The soils that develop on these different formations are usually brown, healthy and well-drained. The well-established parcel area where the grapes are harvested follows the contours of hillsides forming open landscapes mainly or traditionally planted with vines, and parcels with shallow and moderately fertile soils which have a good heat-retaining capacity and a limited water-holding capacity.

(b)   Description of the human factors relevant to the geographical link

The winegrowing area of the registered designation of origin ‘Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu’ has inherited an ancient winegrowing tradition. During the Middle Ages, the salt route from the Bay of Bourgneuf and Noirmoutier already passed via the Lac de Grandlieu for the supply of wine. There had long been active trade with Ireland and the Celtic countries. The medieval vineyards were extended at the instigation of the abbeys of Buzay (on the banks of the Acheneau) and Villeneuve (on the banks of the Ognon).

From the 14th century onwards, a commercial wine trade was established thanks to the presence of the northern European fleets in the Bay of Bourgneuf. In the 16th century, demand from Dutch traders encouraged the production of white wines. Thus, the Melon B variety was established in the region, where it was called ‘Muscadet’ from the mid-17th century. At the end of the 18th century, the parish of Saint-Philbert-de-Grand-Lieu already had one third of its land planted with vines. This municipality had up to 750 hectares of vines during the Second Empire.

Following the phylloxera outbreak, the winegrowing area rebuilt itself using grafted plants and new techniques such as the Guyot pruning method and planting in rows. Since then, production know-how is well consolidated with winegrowers using Melon B as the sole variety, maintaining a high planting density, checking the vines’ growth and limiting their yield, and harvesting the grapes once fully ripened.

To produce richer and more complex wines, the operators adopted a particular technical winemaking procedure known as the Nantes method, which consists in keeping the wines on fine winemaking lees for at least one winter without any racking. This know-how stems from the winegrowers’ habit of keeping a barrel of their best wine on the lees to celebrate family events the following spring. This specific ageing method makes for round and unctuous wines, as they are enriched, in particular, with mannoproteins and other compounds resulting from the autolysis of yeast cell walls. Moreover, this method, based on letting the wines rest and keeping them in a carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere, which strongly limits oxidation and the release of volatile compounds, allows the wines to preserve the aromas formed during the alcoholic fermentation until the spring and beyond. During ageing, the wines are also enriched with tertiary aromas. The grapes, musts and wines produced by the Melon B variety contain a significant concentration of precursors of glycosidic aromas. These molecules, formed from aglycones related to sugars, are normally odourless, but the breaking of the β-glucosidic linkages by various chemical and enzymatic processes generates strongly odorous compounds, mainly monoterpenes and C13-norisoprenoids, with the formation in particular of β-damascone, a substance known for its role as a supplier of fruity aromas of wines. The operators have acquired special expertise in protecting the wines from oxidation in the vat and in bottling them with care, so that their fragrances can continue to be released for as long as possible, making for more complex wines.

Since 1937, the best winegrowing locations in the geographical area have been recognised under the ‘Muscadet’ registered designation of origin. However, from 1955, the winegrowers on the best hillsides, seeking to increase the value of the wines produced there, called for recognition of a registered designation of origin, repeating this request in 1979. The registered designation of origin ‘Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu’ was finally recognised by decree of 29 December 1994. The wines may use the traditional term ‘sur lie’ [aged on the lees], the rules for which have been defined since 1977 in the ‘Muscadet’ area. The wines are bottled during the year following the harvest, directly in the winery, so as to keep any racking and decanting to a minimum.

In 2016, the area under production was approximately 250 hectares operated by around 80 producers. The annual volume marketed amounts to approximately 12 000 hectolitres, of which the majority is marked ‘sur lie’.

2.   Information on the quality and characteristics of the product

The wines with the registered designation of origin ‘Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu’ are still, dry white wines. They have intense aromas dominated by fruit and sometimes complemented by iodine notes, and a balance of taste which generally tends towards freshness. Prolonged maturation can give them greater richness in the mouth and make them suitable for ageing. They are packed carefully in bottles to preserve and strengthen their aromatic richness.

Generally, the wines with the endorsement ‘sur lie’ are balanced in the mouth, tending more towards roundness; they have a more complex bouquet and they may be slightly sparkling due to the residual carbon dioxide formed during the alcoholic fermentation. To preserve their freshness, aromatic richness and endogenous carbon dioxide, the wines are protected from oxidation during ageing. The wines are bottled, their carbon dioxide content being too high for them to be packed in flexible containers, and particular care is required during bottling.

3.   Causal interactions

The geographical area benefits from a climate directly influenced by the nearby Atlantic Ocean and the Lac de Grandlieu, characterised by very mild winters. Together with the fact that most parcels have soils that are mainly sandy, this climate ensures that the vines get off to an early start, benefit from long and sunny days throughout their growth cycle, and can be harvested before the autumn rains. This early start is reflected in the wines’ open and well-rounded character even when young.

The fracturing of the metamorphic rocks which form the geological base and the coarse texture of the soil allow the vines to develop deep roots, thus benefiting from a moderate and regular water supply which enables the grape bunches to ripen quickly. The cool summers ensure that the precursors of the fragile aromas present in the bunches of Melon B are preserved. Protected from diseases by the ocean breezes, the grapes can be harvested at full maturity, giving the wines their fruity character and delicate iodine aroma.

Even though it has inherited an ancient winegrowing tradition, the geographical area has for a long time been one of mixed farming dominated by livestock. The route taken by the operators to obtain recognition of the ‘Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu’ registered designation of origin has led them to pool their wine practices. This collective know-how enables producers to optimise wine yields and the ripeness of the grapes.

Made in line with local custom, the wines are aged on their fine winemaking lees until packaging, without any racking. The geographical area’s mild winter temperatures, which favour interaction with the lees, allow the wines to continue to improve during ageing, growing richer on the palate from the very next spring. Careful bottling makes it possible to preserve the wine’s essential characteristics, as some aromas continue to develop after packaging. This know-how, perfectly suited to the potential of the natural environment and the Melon B variety, allows the odorous molecules formed in fermentation and the precursors of glycosidic aromas to be fully expressed in the wines.

Bottled the year after the harvest, ‘Muscadet Côtes de Grandlieu’ wines marked ‘sur lie’ keep their characteristic freshness, enhanced by a light effervescence due to the residual carbon dioxide formed during the winemaking process. To avoid any oxidation, the wines are bottled directly at the winery. This traditional practice, which minimises handling, is perfectly suited to preserving the delicate aroma compounds of the wines.

The proximity of coastal tourist sites to the geographical area has favoured direct sales of wines. Unlike the majority of the products in the ‘Muscadet’ region, however, the share of production sold in bulk to traders is fairly small. Thanks to this commercial dynamism and the quality of the wines, almost all of the production has the label ‘sur lie’, whether exported abroad, sold to private clients, or served in the restaurants in the Atlantic coastal resorts, where the freshness of the wines harmonises well with shellfish, crustaceans, fish and all seafood products.

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

Area in immediate proximity

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Derogation concerning production in the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

The area in immediate proximity, defined by derogation for making, processing and ageing the wines and for making, processing, ageing and bottling wines eligible for the endorsement ‘sur lie’ [aged on the lees], comprises the territory of the following municipalities or parts of municipalities, based on the 2020 Official Geographic Code:

| — | Department of Loire-Atlantique: Aigrefeuille-sur-Maine, Ancenis-Saint-Géréon, Basse-Goulaine, La Bernerie-en-Retz, Le Bignon (partly), La Boissière-du-Doré, Bouguenais, Boussay, Carquefou, Le Cellier, La Chapelle-Heulin, Château-Thébaud, Chaumes-en-Retz, Chauvé, Cheix-en-Retz, Clisson, Couffé, Divatte-sur-Loire, Frossay, Gétigné, Gorges, La Haie-Fouassière, Haute-Goulaine, Le Landreau, Legé (partly), Ligné, Loireauxence (delegated municipalities of La Chapelle-Saint-Sauveur and Varades only), Le Loroux-Bottereau, Machecoul-Saint-Même, Maisdon-sur-Sèvre, La Marne, Mauves-sur-Loire, Mésanger, Monnières, Montbert (partly), Montrelais, Les Moutiers-en-Retz, Mouzillon, Oudon, Le Pallet, Paulx, Le Pellerin, Pornic, La Regrippière, La Remaudière, Remouillé, Rezé, Rouans, Sainte-Pazanne (partly), Saint-Étienne-de-Mer-Morte, Saint-Fiacre-sur-Maine, Saint-Hilaire-de-Chaléons, Saint-Hilaire-de-Clisson, Saint-Julien-de-Concelles, Saint-Lumine-de-Clisson, Saint-Père-en-Retz, Saint-Viaud, Les Sorinières (partly), Thouaré-sur-Loire, Touvois, Vair-sur-Loire, Vallet, Vertou, Vieillevigne (partly), Villeneuve-en-Retz, Vue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Loire-Atlantique: Aigrefeuille-sur-Maine, Ancenis-Saint-Géréon, Basse-Goulaine, La Bernerie-en-Retz, Le Bignon (partly), La Boissière-du-Doré, Bouguenais, Boussay, Carquefou, Le Cellier, La Chapelle-Heulin, Château-Thébaud, Chaumes-en-Retz, Chauvé, Cheix-en-Retz, Clisson, Couffé, Divatte-sur-Loire, Frossay, Gétigné, Gorges, La Haie-Fouassière, Haute-Goulaine, Le Landreau, Legé (partly), Ligné, Loireauxence (delegated municipalities of La Chapelle-Saint-Sauveur and Varades only), Le Loroux-Bottereau, Machecoul-Saint-Même, Maisdon-sur-Sèvre, La Marne, Mauves-sur-Loire, Mésanger, Monnières, Montbert (partly), Montrelais, Les Moutiers-en-Retz, Mouzillon, Oudon, Le Pallet, Paulx, Le Pellerin, Pornic, La Regrippière, La Remaudière, Remouillé, Rezé, Rouans, Sainte-Pazanne (partly), Saint-Étienne-de-Mer-Morte, Saint-Fiacre-sur-Maine, Saint-Hilaire-de-Chaléons, Saint-Hilaire-de-Clisson, Saint-Julien-de-Concelles, Saint-Lumine-de-Clisson, Saint-Père-en-Retz, Saint-Viaud, Les Sorinières (partly), Thouaré-sur-Loire, Touvois, Vair-sur-Loire, Vallet, Vertou, Vieillevigne (partly), Villeneuve-en-Retz, Vue.

| — | Department of Maine-et-Loire: Beaupréau-en-Mauges (delegated municipalities of Beaupréau and Gesté only), Ingrandes-Le Fresne sur Loire (delegated municipality of Fresne-sur-Loire only), Mauges-sur-Loire (delegated municipalities of La Chapelle-Saint-Florent, Le Marillais and Saint-Florent-le-Vieil only), Montrevault-sur-Èvre (delegated municipalities of La Boissière-sur-Èvre, La Chaussaire, Le Fief-Sauvin, Le Fuilet, Montrevault, Le Puiset-Doré, Saint-Pierre-Montlimart and Saint-Rémy-en-Mauges only), Orée d’Anjou, Sèvremoine (delegated municipalities of Montfaucon-Montigné, Saint-Crespin-sur-Moine, Saint-Germain-sur-Moine and Tillières only). |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Maine-et-Loire: Beaupréau-en-Mauges (delegated municipalities of Beaupréau and Gesté only), Ingrandes-Le Fresne sur Loire (delegated municipality of Fresne-sur-Loire only), Mauges-sur-Loire (delegated municipalities of La Chapelle-Saint-Florent, Le Marillais and Saint-Florent-le-Vieil only), Montrevault-sur-Èvre (delegated municipalities of La Boissière-sur-Èvre, La Chaussaire, Le Fief-Sauvin, Le Fuilet, Montrevault, Le Puiset-Doré, Saint-Pierre-Montlimart and Saint-Rémy-en-Mauges only), Orée d’Anjou, Sèvremoine (delegated municipalities of Montfaucon-Montigné, Saint-Crespin-sur-Moine, Saint-Germain-sur-Moine and Tillières only).

| — | Department of Vendée: Cugand, Montaigu-Vendée (delegated municipalities of Montaigu and Saint-Hilaire-de-Loulay only), Saint-Étienne-du-Bois. |
| --- | --- |

—

Department of Vendée: Cugand, Montaigu-Vendée (delegated municipalities of Montaigu and Saint-Hilaire-de-Loulay only), Saint-Étienne-du-Bois.

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Packaging within the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

Wines that may be labelled ‘sur lie’ must be bottled within the demarcated area.

They are bottled at the winery, so as to keep decanting to a minimum, between 1 March and 31 December of the year following the harvest to preserve the qualities obtained using specific winemaking and ageing methods, in particular their freshness and complex aromas, some of which develop after bottling, and a slight effervescence due to their naturally occurring carbon dioxide content.

This specific ageing method makes for round and unctuous wines, as they are enriched, in particular, with mannoproteins and other compounds resulting from the autolysis of yeast cell walls. This method is based on letting the wines rest and keeping them in a carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere, which strongly limits oxidation and the release of volatile compounds.

The wines are bottled, their carbon dioxide content being too high for them to be packed in flexible containers, and particular care is required during bottling.

They remain on their fine winemaking lees at the time of packing or when first dispatched from the winery.

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

The name of the registered designation of origin may be followed by the reference ‘sur lie’ for wines meeting the production conditions laid down for that reference in the specification.

The name of the registered designation of origin may be followed by the geographical designation ‘Val de Loire’, in accordance with the rules laid down in the specification.

The size of the letters of the reference ‘sur lie’ and the geographical name ‘Val de Loire’ may not be larger, in height, width or thickness, than the size of the letters forming the name of the registered designation of origin.

For wines labelled ‘sur lie’, the vintage must also appear on the label.

Wines with the registered designation of origin may specify a smaller geographical unit on their labels, provided that:

| — | it is a registered place name, |
| --- | --- |

—

it is a registered place name,

| — | it appears on the harvest declaration. |
| --- | --- |

—

it appears on the harvest declaration.

The place name must be printed in letters no larger, in height, width or thickness, than half the size of the letters forming the name of the registered designation of origin. It must appear in the same visual field as the name of the designation of origin.

Link to the product specification

https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-7bb23711-f1fe-43a8-a137-4fe682abc234

---

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

---

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/29

---

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

(2020/C 379/10)

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

COMMUNICATION OF A STANDARD AMENDMENT TO THE SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘CÔTES D’AUVERGNE’

PDO-FR-A0925-AM03

Submitted on: 15.9.2020

DESCRIPTION OF AND REASONS FOR THE APPROVED AMENDMENT

1.   Geographical area

The municipalities of the geographical area have been updated in accordance with the official geographical code. As a result, the municipalities of Mezel and Dallet have been removed and the municipality of Mur-sur-Allier has been added (Mezel and Dallet having been merged into one municipality).

This is a purely editorial change that does not affect the geographical area.

The amendment concerns point 6 of the single document.

2.   Demarcated parcel area

In point (IV)(2) of Chapter I of the product specification, the words ‘and 17 June 2020’ have been added after ‘16 November 2010’. The words ‘and 17 June 2020’ have been added after ‘3 May 2017’.

The purpose of this amendment is to add the date on which the relevant national authority approved changes to the demarcated parcel area within the geographical area of production. Parcels are demarcated by identifying the parcels within the geographical area of production that are suitable for producing the product covered by the protected designation of origin.

The single document is not affected by this amendment.

3.   Area in immediate proximity

The municipalities in the area in immediate proximity have been updated in accordance with the official geographical code. The municipality of ‘Villeneuve-Lembron’ has therefore been renamed ‘Villeneuve’.

The amendment concerns point 9 of the single document.

4.   Date for circulation between authorised warehouses

Point IX(4)(b) of Chapter 1 concerning the date from which wines can be circulated between authorised warehouses has been deleted.

The single document is not affected by this amendment.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

1.   Product name

Côtes d’Auvergne

2.   Geographical indication type

PDO - Protected Designation of Origin

3.   Categories of grapevine product

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

1.

Wine

4.   Description of the wine(s)

The wines in question are still white, red and rosé wines with the following analytical characteristics: minimum natural alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 %; fermentable sugar (glucose and fructose) content not greater than 3 g/l and total acidity not greater than 112 milliequivalents per litre at the packaging stage. After enrichment, the wines’ total alcoholic strength by volume must not exceed 12,5 %.

Their total volatile acidity and total sulphur dioxide content are as laid down in EU legislation.

Red wines in batches ready to be marketed in bulk or at the packaging stage have a malic acid content not greater than 0,4 grams per litre. The white wines generally have hints of citrus fruit, exotic fruit or ripe pear, sometimes evolving towards roasted aromas with age. They usually have a certain liveliness, but can also be fat and full-bodied on the palate.

The rosé wines are delicate with aromas often dominated by fruitiness (citrus fruit, exotic fruit and red fruit, among others).

The red wines usually have a deep colour, and their aromas, often fruity in the young wines (blackcurrant, redcurrant, etc.), sometimes evolve towards notes of candied ripe fruit, sour cherry or spices (notably pepper) with age.

| General analytical characteristics |
| --- |
| Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume): | |
| Minimum total acidity: | |
| Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre): | |
| Maximum total sulphur dioxide content (in milligrams per litre): | |

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume):

Minimum total acidity:

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre):

Maximum total sulphur dioxide content (in milligrams per litre):

5.   Winemaking practices

a.   Specific oenological practices

Specific oenological practice

It is not permitted to use oenological charcoal, either alone or mixed in preparations, to make the rosé wines. Subtractive enrichment techniques are permitted for the red wines, the maximum partial concentration rate being set at 10 % in relation to the volumes used. After enrichment, the wines’ total alcoholic strength by volume must not exceed 12,5 %. In addition to the above provisions, all winemaking practices followed must also comply with the requirements laid down at EU level and in the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code.

Cultivation method

| — | Training systems






  (a) | Planting density The minimum vine planting density is 4 400 plants per hectare. The distance between the rows of vines is up to 2,50 metres and the spacing between plants in the same row is between 0,90 metres and 1,40 metres. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Training systems

(a)

Planting density The minimum vine planting density is 4 400 plants per hectare. The distance between the rows of vines is up to 2,50 metres and the spacing between plants in the same row is between 0,90 metres and 1,40 metres.

| (b) | Pruning rules The vines are pruned with a maximum of 12 buds per plant, using the following techniques: – single Guyot pruning with a single cane and up to two spurs; – short double Guyot (Y-type) pruning with two canes and up to two spurs; – short pruning (Cordon de Royat or fan pruning). After flowering there are up to 10 fruit-bearing branches per plant (Lorenz phenological growth stage 23). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Pruning rules The vines are pruned with a maximum of 12 buds per plant, using the following techniques: – single Guyot pruning with a single cane and up to two spurs; – short double Guyot (Y-type) pruning with two canes and up to two spurs; – short pruning (Cordon de Royat or fan pruning). After flowering there are up to 10 fruit-bearing branches per plant (Lorenz phenological growth stage 23).

b.   Maximum yields

60 hectolitres per hectare

6.   Demarcated geographical area

The grapes are harvested and the wines made and developed in the following municipalities of the department of Puy-de-Dôme (list established on the basis the 2020 Official Geographic Code): Aubière, Authezat, Beaumont, Beauregard-Vendon, Billom, Blanzat, Boudes, Cébazat, Chalus, Chanonat, Chas, Châteaugay, Châtel-Guyon, Chauriat, Clermont-Ferrand, Corent, Cournon-d’Auvergne, Le Crest, Gimeaux, Laps, Lempdes, Malauzat, Les Martres-de-Veyre, Ménétrol, Mirefleurs, Mur-sur-Allier, Neschers, Orcet, Pérignat-lès-Sarliève, Pignols, Plauzat, Prompsat, Riom, La Roche-Blanche, La Roche-Noire, Romagnat, Saint-Amant-Tallende, Saint-Bonnet-lès-Allier, Saint-Georges-sur-Allier, Saint-Hérent, Saint-Maurice, Saint-Sandoux, Saint-Yvoine, Sauvagnat-Sainte-Marthe La Sauvetat, Sayat, Tallende, Vertaizon, Veyre-Monton, Vic-le-Comte, Volvic and Yssac-la-Tourette.

7.   Main wine grape variety(-ies)

Pinot noir N

8.   Description of the link(s)

1.   Information on the geographical area

(a)   Description of the natural factors relevant to the link

The geographical area in the department of Puy-de-Dôme extends about 80 kilometres north to south and 15 kilometres east to west, mainly along the edges of the Limagne basin and on the flanks of the volcanic structures dotting the area between the Livradois mountains to the east and the Sancy mountain range to the west. The winegrowing area is characterised by a multitude of small, scattered vine plots, almost all of them located on fairly steep slopes at an altitude of between 350 m and 550 m in the territory of the 53 municipalities that make up the geographical area.

Volcanic activity shaped the area’s varied landscape, including the Chaîne des Puys mountain range, the highest peak of which is, at 1 464 m, the Puy de Dôme. The well-known supplementary geographical names such as ‘Boudes’, ‘Chanturgue’, ‘Châteaugay’, ‘Corent’ and ‘Madargue’, each with their specific qualities, reflect the diversity of the area. ‘Madargue’ vineyards are located on a hillside with white marly soils in the municipality of Riom. Emblematic of the ‘Côtes d’Auvergne’ designation, ‘Chanturgue’ vineyards (the name derives from the Celtic words ‘cantalo’, meaning ‘bright’, and ‘clarus’, meaning ‘clearly visible’) are situated on steep slopes (with a gradient of more than 25 %) on a basaltic plateau. The name ‘Châteaugay’ refers to vineyards located on the slopes of an ancient basaltic flow fragmented into several small plateaus. ‘Corent’ vineyards owe their renown to a ‘puy’ (volcanic hill) formed during the last eruptions, with dark soils rich in volcanic colluvium. The name ‘Boudes’ refers to vineyards located on a vast limestone hill, protected at the top by a basaltic flow.

The demarcated parcel area for harvesting the grapes has very diverse soils, with material ranging from marl, basalt and volcanic colluvium to granite and gneiss. However, all the soils have good thermal properties and low water retention, and most of the parcels are well exposed.

The geographical area enjoys a semi-continental climate. The Foehn effect created by the Chaîne des Puys and the Sancy massif protects it from humid air masses from the west, meaning the temperature is generally higher than in the surrounding area.

(b)   Description of the human factors relevant to the geographical link

Winegrowing in the department of Puy-de-Dôme dates at least as far back as the fifth century, as evidenced by the writings of Sidoine Apollinaire, the then Bishop of Clermont. Encouraged by the nobility and the clergy and later the bourgeoisie, quality vineyards developed throughout the Middle Ages up until the late 18th century, when the planted area reached some 21 000 hectares.

By abolishing obstacles to trade in wines, the French Revolution allowed a great many farmers to own their own land and grow vineyards. As a result, the number of small, privately owned vineyards increased four-fold between 1789 and 1804, and by 1850 the planted area in the department of Puy-de-Dôme had increased from 21 000 to 34 000 hectares. Gamay N became the preferred variety because it was well adapted to the pruning methods used. Dr Jules Guyot remarked that ‘vines must be grown intelligently’. ‘Gamay d’Auvergne’, a variety with ‘loose’ bunches and late budding selected from Gamay N, was identified.

Winegrowing flourished thanks to the ports of Allier, which offered an outlet towards the north. The wine could be transported down the Loire river to Orléans, and from there to the Seine (and Paris) by land. The river was therefore a major contributor to the winegrowers’ prosperity.

In 1895 there were 45 000 hectares of vineyards.

From 1890 phylloxera spread rapidly across Auvergne, destroying many of its vineyards. The affected areas were only partially recovered, at the initiative of a few determined producers, after 1900. In 1902 a wine laboratory was set up, and in 1929 an association for the protection of ‘Châteauguay’ wines was established. It was extended to cover all Auvergne wines in 1932. That same year, the ‘Vins d’Auvergne’ designation of origin was granted, by a judgment of the Tribunal de Riom, for wines made from Gamay N, Pinot noir N and Chardonnay B grapes on the territory of 171 municipalities of the department of Puy-de-Dôme.

This led producers to combine their efforts and create one cooperative winery in Aubière in 1935, followed by a second, the Cave des Coteaux d’Auvergne, in 1950, renamed ‘Cave Saint-Verny’ in 2010. Finally, a winegrowers’ association (confrérie vigneronne) was set up in 1948 to promote Auvergne wines.

This growing emphasis on quality soon permitted five sectors to distinguish themselves as the region’s dynamic force: ‘Boudes’, ‘Chanturgue’, ‘Châteaugay’, ‘Corent’ and ‘Madargue’. Their efforts resulted in the recognition of the ‘Côtes d’Auvergne’ designation of origin as a ‘vin délimité de qualité supérieure’ in May 1951. Winegrowing has, to a large extent, remained a family business in Auvergne. Thus, in 2008, the region’s 330 hectares under vines were exploited by some 150 winegrowers. Of those, around 50 are private wineries and about 100 are affiliated to the cooperative winery. Red wines account for 75 % of the total production of some 11 000 hectolitres.

2.   Information on the quality and characteristics of the product

The white wines generally have hints of citrus fruit, exotic fruit or ripe pear, sometimes evolving towards roasted aromas with age. They usually have a certain liveliness, but can also be fat and full-bodied on the palate. The rosé wines are delicate with aromas often dominated by fruitiness (citrus fruit, exotic fruit and red fruit, among others).

The red wines usually have a deep colour, and their aromas, often fruity in the young wines (blackcurrant, redcurrant, etc.), sometimes evolve towards notes of candied ripe fruit, sour cherry or spices (notably pepper) with age.

3.   Causal interaction

Above all, the wines owe their unique qualities to the location of the winegrowing municipalities and parcels on the slopes of volcanic hills or ‘puys’, sheltered from low pressure systems from the west by the Chaîne des Puys and the Sancy massif.

Foehn winds have a major impact on the geographical area in terms of regulating temperatures and limiting rainfall. With warm summers and an annual average rainfall of 600 millimetres, the vines enjoy excellent weather conditions throughout the growing season on parcels that are specifically demarcated for harvesting grapes. These conditions ensure an early start to the growing season and allow the grapes to reach optimum ripeness.

The wines’ unique qualities are also due to the choice of varieties through a selection process that has taken place quite naturally over the region’s long history of winegrowing. Gamay N, Pinot noir N and Chardonnay B, all early varieties, have proved to be those best adapted to these specific conditions.

Those conditions have also required careful management of the plants and their production potential, through a high planting density, rigorous pruning, relatively high foliage and vegetation cover to protect the soil.

The growers’ expertise in tending the vine and controlling the yields, combined with their winemaking knowhow, attests to the strong link between the volcanic soils, characterised by very good thermal properties and low water retention, and the quality of the wines: lively whites that are fat on the palate with aromas of citrus fruit, delicate and fruity rosés and reds with fruity flavours and spicy notes.

It was thus the efforts of several generations of winegrowers that resulted in the recognition of Auvergne wines in the 1932 judgment, later confirmed by the recognition of the five supplementary geographical names that have always enjoyed a strong reputation in Auvergne.

The long-standing use of these local names in the geographical area is evidence of the renown of the wines bearing the ‘Côtes d’Auvergne’ registered designation of origin.

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

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Derogation concerning production in the demarcated geographical area

Description of the condition:

Area in immediate proximity

The area in immediate proximity, defined by derogation for making and developing the wines, comprises the territory of the following municipalities of the department of Puy-de-Dôme (list established on the basis the 2020 Official Geographic Code): Beauregard-l’Évèque, Busséol, Le Cendre, Chadeleuf, Champeix, Chidrac, Coudes, Davayat, Égliseneuve-près-Billom, Espirat, Gerzat, Glaine-Montaigut, Ludesse, Madriat, Mareugheol, Montmorin, Montpeyroux, Mozac, Nohanent, Orbeil, Pardines, Parent, Pérignat-sur-Allier, Pont-du-Château, Reignat, Saint-Bonnet-près-Riom, Saint-Germain-Lembron, Saint-Julien-de-Coppel, Saint-Myon, Saint-Saturnin, Sallèdes, Teilhède, Vassel, Villeneuve and Yronde-et-Buron.

Legal framework:

National legislation

Type of further condition:

Additional provisions relating to labelling

Description of the condition:

The ‘Côtes d’Auvergne’ registered designation of origin may, in accordance with the provisions laid down in the specification, be supplemented by one of the following geographical names: ‘Boudes’, ‘Chanturgue’, ‘Châteaugay’, ‘Corent’ or ‘Madargue’.

| (a) | All optional terms whose use, under EU rules, may be regulated by the Member States must be printed on the labels in letters that are no larger, in height or in width, than twice the size of the letters forming the registered designation of origin. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

All optional terms whose use, under EU rules, may be regulated by the Member States must be printed on the labels in letters that are no larger, in height or in width, than twice the size of the letters forming the registered designation of origin.

| (b) | The size of the letters forming the supplementary geographical names may not be larger, either in height or in width, than the size of the letters forming the name of the registered designation of origin. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The size of the letters forming the supplementary geographical names may not be larger, either in height or in width, than the size of the letters forming the name of the registered designation of origin.

| (c) | The labels of wines marked with the registered designation of origin may bear the name of a smaller geographical entity, provided that: – it is a registered place name; – it appears on the harvest declaration. The place name must be printed in letters no larger, either in height or in width, than half the size of the letters forming the name of the registered designation of origin. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The labels of wines marked with the registered designation of origin may bear the name of a smaller geographical entity, provided that: – it is a registered place name; – it appears on the harvest declaration. The place name must be printed in letters no larger, either in height or in width, than half the size of the letters forming the name of the registered designation of origin.

Link to the product specification

https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-cd494272-3449-4ec1-a273-0ee14a3e54f7

---

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

---

Corrigenda

| 10.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/34

---

Corrigendum to Open call for proposals – GP/DSI/ReferNet_FPA/002/20 – ReferNet – Cedefop’s European Network of Expertise in Vocational Education and Training (VET)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 327 of 5 October 2020
  )

(2020/C 379/11)

‘Applications for the Framework Partnership Agreement 2021-23 and the Specific Grant Agreement for 2021 must be submitted at the latest on 30 November 2020.’

As soon as this corrigendum has been published, an announcement shall be made on Cedefop’s website under the link:

https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/about-cedefop/public-procurement/refernet-call-proposals-belgium

---