title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1413 of 10 August 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ogulinski kiseli kupus/Ogulinsko kiselo zelje (PDO))

text:
               21.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 220/1

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1413
   of 10 August 2015
   entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ogulinski kiseli kupus/Ogulinsko kiselo zelje (PDO))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Ogulinski kiseli kupus’/‘Ogulinsko kiselo zelje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (2).

               (2)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Ogulinski kiseli kupus’/‘Ogulinsko kiselo zelje’ should therefore be entered in the register,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The name ‘Ogulinski kiseli kupus’/‘Ogulinsko kiselo zelje’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
   The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 10 August 2015.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  OJ C 115, 10.4.2015, p. 20.

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/820 of 24 May 2016 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               25.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 136/10

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/820
   of 24 May 2016
   establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1),
   Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

               (2)

               The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 24 May 2016.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

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

      (2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

      ANNEX

         Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Third country code (1)

                  Standard import value

                  0702 00 00

                  MA

                  106,1

                  TR

                  68,6

                  ZZ

                  87,4

                  0707 00 05

                  TR

                  105,8

                  ZZ

                  105,8

                  0709 93 10

                  TR

                  140,2

                  ZZ

                  140,2

                  0805 10 20

                  EG

                  55,4

                  IL

                  62,4

                  MA

                  53,2

                  TR

                  38,0

                  ZA

                  78,9

                  ZZ

                  57,6

                  0805 50 10

                  AR

                  72,8

                  TR

                  143,1

                  ZA

                  178,0

                  ZZ

                  131,3

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  89,5

                  BR

                  91,3

                  CL

                  129,8

                  CN

                  65,7

                  NZ

                  151,4

                  US

                  209,8

                  ZA

                  106,2

                  ZZ

                  120,5

                  0809 29 00

                  TR

                  551,2

                  US

                  931,3

                  ZZ

                  741,3

         (1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1106/2012 of 27 November 2012 implementing Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries, as regards the update of the nomenclature of countries and territories (OJ L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7). Code ‘ZZ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.


title: Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 453/2011 of 4 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

text:
               12.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 123/1

         COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 453/2011
   of 4 May 2011
   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(2) and (5) and Article 9(4) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (Commission) after consulting the Advisory Committee,
   Whereas:
   A.   PROCEDURE

   1.   Measures in force

               (1)

               Following an anti-dumping investigation (the original investigation), the Council imposed by Regulation (EC) No 95/95 (2) of 21 January 1995 a definitive anti-dumping duty in the form of a specific duty on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (the definitive anti-dumping measures). The specific duty rate was set at EUR 352 per tonne.

               (2)

               Following an interim review initiated in May 1997 upon the request of a Chinese exporter, the measures were maintained by Regulation (EC) No 2722/1999 (3) for a further period of 4 years.

               (3)

               In April 2005, following an expiry review, the Council by Regulation (EC) No 639/2005 (4) extended the measures for a further period of 5 years.

         2.   Request for an expiry review

               (4)

               Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (5) of the definitive anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received on 28 January 2010 a request for the initiation of an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation. The request was lodged by two Union producers, Lenzing AG and Tanin Sevnica kemična industrija d.d. (the applicants), representing a major proportion of the Union production of furfuraldehyde, in this case more than 50 %.

               (5)

               The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Union industry (the ‘UI’).

         3.   Initiation of an expiry review

               (6)

               Having determined that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, and after consulting the Advisory Committee, the Commission announced on 27 April 2010, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (6) (the Notice of initiation), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

         4.   Investigation

   4.1.   Investigation period

               (7)

               The investigation concerning the likelihood of a continuation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).

         4.2.   Parties concerned by this investigation

               (8)

               The Commission officially advised the applicants, exporting producers in the country concerned, importers, users known to be concerned, and the representatives of the country concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.

               (9)

               Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of initiation. All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.

         4.3.   Sampling

               (10)

               In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in the PRC, it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation. Given that no exporting producers came forward to cooperate, sampling was not necessary.

         4.4.   Verification of information received

               (11)

               The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to those who made themselves known within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation.

               (12)

               Replies to the questionnaires were received from the two Union producers, one importer/user and one producer in the analogue country, Argentina. None of the Chinese exporting producers cooperated in the current investigation.

               (13)

               The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Union interest. Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following interested parties:

                           (a)

                              Union producers

                                       —

                                       Lenzing AG, (Lenzing), Austria

                                       —

                                       Tanin Sevnica kemična industrija d.d (Tanin), Slovenia

                           (b)

                              Unrelated importer/user

                                       —

                                       International Furan Chemicals BV (IFC), Rotterdam

         B.   PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

   1.   Product concerned

               (14)

               The product concerned by this review is the same as the one in the original investigation and the following reviews mentioned above in recitals 2 and 3, namely furfuraldehyde originating in the PRC, currently falling within CN code 2932 12 00 (the product concerned). Furfuraldehyde is also known as 2-furaldehyde or furfural.

               (15)

               Furfuraldehyde is a light yellow liquid with a characteristic pungent odour, which is obtained by processing different types of agricultural waste. Furfuraldehyde has two main applications: as a selective solvent in petroleum refining for the production of lubricating oils and as raw material for processing into furfuryl alcohol, which is used to make synthetic resin for foundry moulds.

         2.   Like product

               (16)

               As in the previous investigations, this investigation confirmed that the furfuraldehyde produced in the PRC and exported to the European Union, the furfuraldehyde produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country Argentina and the furfuraldehyde manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics, and the same basic uses. They were therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

         C.   LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF DUMPING

               (17)

               In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.

         1.   General

               (18)

               Of the 34 known Chinese exporting producers contacted at the initiation, none cooperated with the investigation and no information was submitted by any of them. Therefore, the findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping set out below had to be based on facts available, in particular the information submitted by the cooperating importer/industrial user, Eurostat data, official export statistics of the PRC and information in the review request.

         2.   Analogue country

               (19)

               Since the PRC is an economy in transition, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value had to be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an appropriate market economy third country (the analogue country), or the price from the analogue country to other countries, including the Union, or, where those are not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary to include a reasonable profit margin.

               (20)

               As in the original investigation, Argentina was proposed in the Notice of initiation as an appropriate analogue country for the purposes of establishing normal value. Following the publication of the Notice of initiation, no comments concerning the proposed analogue country were received.

               (21)

               One producer of furfuraldehyde in Argentina cooperated with the investigation by replying to a questionnaire. The investigation showed that Argentina had a competitive market for furfuraldehyde with around 90 % of the market supplied by local production and the rest by imports from third countries. The production volume in Argentina constitutes more than 70 % of the volume of Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Union for inward processing. The Argentinean market was therefore deemed sufficiently representative for the determination of normal value for the PRC.

               (22)

               It is therefore concluded, as in the original investigation, that Argentina constitutes an appropriate analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.

         3.   Dumping of imports during the RIP

   3.1.   Normal value

               (23)

               Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was established on the basis of the information received from the cooperating producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of the price paid or payable on the domestic market of Argentina by unrelated customers, since these sales were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade.

               (24)

               As a result, normal value was established as the weighted average domestic sales price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Argentina.

               (25)

               It was first established whether the total domestic sales of the like product to independent customers were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. whether they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Union. The domestic sales of the cooperating producer in Argentina were considered sufficiently representative during the RIP.

               (26)

               The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of the like product could be regarded as being sold in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation. This was done by establishing for the like product sold on the Argentinean market the proportion of profitable domestic sales to independent customers during the RIP. Since all sales of the like product during the RIP were profitable, normal value was based on weighted average of all domestic sales.

         3.2.   Export price

               (27)

               As none of the Chinese exporters to the Union cooperated with the investigation, export prices were established on the basis of the facts available. The most appropriate basis was found to be the information provided by the cooperating importer and the Eurostat data in relation to imports into the Union of the product concerned. Though most of these imports were made under inward processing regime (IPR) (Chinese furfuraldehyde was further processed into furfuryl alcohol for export), there was no reason to believe that they were not a reasonable basis for establishing export prices.

         3.3.   Comparison

               (28)

               For the purposes of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, and in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made with regard to certain differences in transport and insurance, which affected prices and price comparability.

         3.4.   Dumping margin

               (29)

               In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export prices at the same level of trade. This comparison showed the existence of significant dumping.

         4.   Development of imports should measures be repealed

               (30)

               Further to the analysis of the existence of dumping during the RIP, the likelihood of the continuation of dumping should measures be repealed was investigated. Given the fact that no exporting producer in the PRC cooperated in this investigation, the conclusions below rely on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, namely the information provided by the cooperating importer, Eurostat data, official export statistics of the PRC and the review request.

               (31)

               In this respect the following elements were analysed: development of imports into the Union from the PRC under IPR, development of Chinese exports to third countries and the spare capacity of the Chinese producers.

         4.1.   Development of imports from the PRC

               (32)

               According to the Chinese official export statistics the total worldwide exports from the PRC of the product concerned increased by 117 % during the period considered. This increase was mainly absorbed by the US and other third country markets.

               (33)

               Concerning the exports to the Union, according to Eurostat and verified import data, it should be noted that during the RIP 99,9 % of all the imports from the PRC of the product concerned into the Union were made for inward processing, the remaining 0,1 % for free circulation. There were no imports for free circulation in 2007 and 2008. For completeness of data, the imports for free circulation have been taken into account in the total import volume, however, a detailed analysis of the development of prices of these imports was considered immaterial due to the negligible volumes involved.

               (34)

               The import volume from PRC under the IPR and free circulation decreased by 67 % from 2007 to the RIP, which coincided with shrinking consumption on the Union market by 24 % as set out in recital 45 below. The Chinese furfuraldehyde imported under IPR was further processed into furfuryl alcohol which was then exported. There is no information available as to how the imports for free circulation have been used in the Union, however, it can be reasonably assumed that, should the measures be repealed, at least part of the current imports under IPR could be imported for free circulation as such or as the final downstream product (furfuryl alcohol) sold on the Union market.

               (35)

               The price of Chinese exports has varied between markets in the period from 2007 to the RIP. While there has been a sharp decrease in the export price to the Union (by 11 %) in this period, the other export markets have experienced an increase of approximately 10 %. It is, however, notable that the prices for the US market during the RIP have been at roughly the same level as to the Union, while, according to the Chinese export statistics, the exports to other markets have been by 19 % per tonne more expensive. Considering that the product concerned is very homogeneous, such price differences can only be explained by the deliberate pricing strategy of Chinese exporters who obtain higher prices and profits on markets with less competition than in markets such as the Union and the US where lower prices are practised. Considering that exports to the Union and the US constituted 46 % of total Chinese exports, this leads to a conclusion that this price discrimination could be maintained, if duties were to lapse, in order to sustain dumping at least on the Union market.

         4.2.   Spare capacity of the exporters

               (36)

               Since little public information is available about the Chinese industry of furfuraldehyde, the following conclusions rely mainly on the information contained in the review request.

               (37)

               According to the request for the expiry review, the Chinese production of furfuraldehyde has been steadily increasing since 1999, and in 2009 the production volume reached around 320 000 tonnes. The Chinese capacity utilisation rate is said to be at around 94 % which means that there is idle capacity of around 20 000 tonnes per year in the PRC, i.e. approximately half of total consumption in the Union. More than 200 production plants of furfuraldehyde are said to currently operate in the PRC, of which more and more engage in export activities.

               (38)

               Based on the above, it can be concluded that, if the measures were repealed, it can be expected that the exports of the product concerned from the PRC would enter the Union market outside the IPR in significant quantities and most likely would continue being dumped.

         5.   Conclusion on the likelihood of a continuation of dumping

               (39)

               Considering the large production capacity available in the PRC, the ability of Chinese producers to increase rapidly the production volumes and direct them for export, as well as the pricing of those exports, it is reasonable to assume that a repeal of the measures would result in a resumption of exports from the PRC to the Union outside the IPR.

               (40)

               The current export prices under IPR do not bear the anti-dumping duty. It is considered therefore that such prices are also indicative as to future price levels, should measures be repealed. In this regard, it was found that Chinese export prices under IPR were dumped and were undercutting the Union producers’ prices by 11 % in the RIP, as set out in recital 69 below.

               (41)

               In view of the findings described above, it can be concluded that the exports from the PRC are still being dumped and that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping on the Union market if the current anti-dumping measures were to lapse.

         D.   DEFINITION OF THE UNION INDUSTRY

               (42)

               The UI consists of two companies: Lenzing AG (Austria) and Tanin Sevnica kemična industrija d.d (Slovenia), which together account for 100 % of the Union’s production of the product concerned in the RIP. Both companies replied to the questionnaires and fully cooperated in the investigation. On this basis, the two Union producers constitute the Union industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation. For reasons of confidentiality data concerning the performance of the UI are given only in indexed form.

               (43)

               Compared to the original investigation, the UI has changed: significantly Furfural Español S.A., now called Nutrafur, the Spanish producer that lodged the original complaint in 1994, ceased production in October 2008. Nutrafur, which supports the present request for review, has not cooperated in this proceeding. However, Nutrafur is still active in the market, as a trader buying the product concerned from its former Union competitors. The production figures of Nutrafur in 2007 and 2008 mentioned in the request were included in the consumption in the Union market.

         E.   SITUATION ON THE UNION MARKET

   1.   Consumption in the Union market

               (44)

               Union consumption of furfuraldehyde was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the UI on the Union market (including the sales of Nutrafur while it was still producing furfuraldehyde) plus imports under IPR from the PRC and imports from other third countries into free circulation, based on verified data of the importer International Furan Chemicals BV (IFC) and Eurostat. As Eurostat does not disclose the complete information for confidentiality reasons, Eurostat data were used only for the imports from other third countries except PRC and the Dominican Republic, since IFC is the sole importer of furfuraldehyde from these sources.

               (45)

               On this basis, during the period considered, the Union consumption decreased by 24 %, from 48 534 tonnes in 2007 to 36 725 tonnes, during the RIP.

                  Table 1 —   Union consumption

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Tonnes

                           48 534

                           45 738

                           38 175

                           36 725

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           94

                           79

                           76

                           Y/Y trend

                           –6

                           –15

                           –3

                              Source: verified questionnaire replies of the UI and IFC, review request and Eurostat

         2.   Imports from the PRC

   2.1.   Volume, market share and prices

               (46)

               According to Chinese export statistics, during the RIP there were only insignificant (2,5 tonnes) Chinese imports for free circulation, most of the Chinese imports being made under IPR. The Chinese IPR volume decreased from 8 264 tonnes in 2007 to 2 749 tonnes in the RIP, i.e. by 67 %. In 2008 Chinese IPR imports reached a peak of approximately 10 000 tonnes which decreased in the following years. Over the period considered the Chinese market share for IPR decreased from 17 % to 8 %, i.e. by 9 percentage points.

               (47)

               The Chinese IPR price decreased by 12 % from EUR 774 in 2007 to EUR 685 in the RIP.

                  Table 2 —   Imports from the PRC

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Tonnes

                           8 264

                           10 002

                           5 159

                           2 749

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           121

                           62

                           33

                           Y/Y trend

                           21

                           –59

                           –29

                           Market share

                           17 %

                           22 %

                           14 %

                           7 %

                           Price, EUR/tonne

                           774

                           1 014

                           690

                           685

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           131

                           89

                           88

                              Source: Verified questionnaire response of IFC

         3.   Import volumes and prices from other third countries

               (48)

               It should be noted that, as in the original investigation, the imports from the Dominican Republic were entirely shipments from a parent company to its European subsidiary to produce furfuryl alcohol. Thus, the prices used in these transactions are transfer prices between related companies and did not reflect real market prices. According to Eurostat, import volumes of furfuraldehyde into the Union from countries other than the PRC, together with their average prices, developed as follows:

                  Table 3 —   Imports into the Union from the Dominican Republic

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Tonnes

                           32 003

                           27 662

                           24 996

                           25 959

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           86

                           78

                           81

                           Y/Y trend

                           –14

                           –8

                           3

                           Market share

                           66 %

                           60 %

                           65 %

                           71 %

                           Price, EUR/tonne

                           809

                           982

                           582

                           670

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           121

                           72

                           83

                  Table 4 —   Imports into the Union from other third countries

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Tonnes

                           1 687

                           1 583

                           1 226

                           1 158

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           94

                           73

                           69

                           Y/Y trend

                           –6

                           –21

                           –4

                           Market share

                           3 %

                           3 %

                           3 %

                           3 %

                           Price, EUR/tonne

                           800

                           997

                           632

                           621

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           125

                           79

                           78

               (49)

               During the period considered the import volumes of furfuraldehyde from the Dominican Republic and all other third countries decreased significantly by 19 % and 31 % respectively. However the decrease of imports from the Dominican Republic still allowed for an increase in the market share from 66 % to 71 %. However all these imports were incorporated in the production of furfuryl alcohol by the European subsidiary of the producer in the Dominican Republic. Therefore, the prices of these transactions were transfer prices between related companies and may not reflect real market prices.

         3.1.   Export volumes and prices from the PRC to other third countries

               (50)

               During the period considered export volumes increased by 105 % (equivalent to approximately 9 % of total Union sales in the RIP). It is noted that export sales by the UI to other third countries were made at low prices during the RIP. This can be explained by the competition in large quantities at low prices with Chinese furfuraldehyde in other third countries.

                  Table 5 —   Export volumes and prices of the UI to other third countries

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Quantities — Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           136

                           211

                           205

                           Y/Y trend

                           36

                           75

                           –6

                           Prices — Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           114

                           88

                           82

                           Y/Y trend

                           14

                           –26

                           –6

         4.   Economic situation of the UI

               (51)

               The economic situation of the UI, i.e. the two companies Lenzing and Tanin is analysed below.

         4.1.   Production

               (52)

               The total production by the UI of the product concerned increased by 14 % during the period considered.

                  Table 6 —   Union production

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           109

                           114

                           114

                           Y/Y trend

                           9

                           5

                           0

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.2.   Production capacity and capacity utilisation

               (53)

               The total production capacity of the UI remained the same during the period considered. The capacity utilisation of the UI increased by 12 percentage points from 85 % to 97 % meaning that production was almost at full capacity.

                  Table 7 —   Union capacity

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           100

                           Capacity utilisation

                           85 %

                           92 %

                           96 %

                           97 %

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.3.   Level of stocks

               (54)

               The table below shows that the level of stocks of the UI increased by 26 % during the period considered. The increase of stocks was particularly significant between 2007 and 2008, when stocks increased by 193 %.

                  Table 8 —   Stocks

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           293

                           165

                           126

                           Y/Y trend

                           193

                           – 128

                           –40

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.4.   Sales volume and market share

               (55)

               The UI’s sales volume to unrelated customers in the Union market increased by 13 %, during the RIP. Following the increase in sales, the market share of the UI increased by 5 percentage points during the period considered.

                  Table 9 —   Sales volume and Union market share

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           100

                           112

                           113

                           Market share ranged

                           10-20 %

                           10-20 %

                           14-24 %

                           15-25 %

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.5.   Average sales prices

               (56)

               During the period considered the average sales prices charged by the UI on the Union market decreased by 1 %. In 2008 the average sales price reached a peak with an increase of 11 %, but then decreased rapidly in the following year. The slight decrease in the sales prices must be seen in view of the increase of 5 % in the unit cost of production, that the UI was not able to take into account.

                  Table 10 —   Average sales price in the Union

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           111

                           98

                           99

                           Y/Y trend

                           11

                           –13

                           1

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.6.   Average cost of production

               (57)

               During the period considered the average cost of production (COP) increased by 5 % mainly due to the increase in employment and therefore an increase in the total cost of labour.

                  Table 11 —   Average cost of production

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           105

                           105

                           105

                           Y/Y trend

                           5

                           0

                           0

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.7.   Profitability and cash flow

               (58)

               The profits made by the UI decreased significantly during the period considered together with the cash flow, which decreased by 56 %. This was due to pressure on sales prices, despite the increase both in production and in sales.

                  Table 12 —   Profitability and cash flow

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Profitability Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           175

                           –7

                           –4

                           Y/Y trend

                           75

                           – 182

                           3

                           Cash Flow — Index (2007=100)

                           100

                           144

                           49

                           44

                           Y/Y trend

                           44

                           –95

                           –5

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.8.   Investments, return on investments and ability to raise capital

               (59)

               Investments dropped by 95 % between 2007 and the RIP. Return on investments, expressed as profits/losses of the product concerned in relation to the net book value of investments, decreased considerably during the period considered, following the trend of investments. As a result of the deterioration in profitability and cash flow, the applicants’ ability to raise capital has worsened significantly during the period under consideration. This worsening can also be clearly seen in the applicants’ investments, which fell by 95 % during the period considered.

                  Table 13 —   Investments and return on investments

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Investments index (2007=100)

                           100

                           61

                           2

                           5

                           Y/Y trend

                           –39

                           –59

                           3

                           Return on investments index (2007=100)

                           100

                           196

                           –7

                           –4

                           Y/Y trend

                           96

                           – 203

                           3

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.9.   Employment and productivity

               (60)

               The employment level within the UI during the period considered increased by 8 %. Productivity, measured as output in tonnes per person employed, increased by 6 %. However, the total labour costs increased by 16 % during the period considered.

                  Table 14 —   Employment and productivity

                           Year

                           2007

                           2008

                           2009

                           RIP

                           Employment — Index

                           100

                           109

                           109

                           108

                           Productivity (tonnes/employees) — Index

                           100

                           100

                           105

                           106

                           Labour costs — Index

                           100

                           114

                           115

                           116

                              Source: Verified questionnaire replies of the Union producers

         4.10.   Magnitude of dumping margin

               (61)

               Given the volume, the market share and the prices of the dumped imports from the PRC, the impact on the UI of the actual margins of dumping cannot be considered to be negligible.

         4.11.   Recovery from the effects of dumping

               (62)

               As shown by the positive evolution of most of the indicators listed above, during the period considered the financial situation of the UI has partially recovered from the injurious effect of dumped imports originating in the PRC.

         4.12.   Growth

               (63)

               While Union consumption decreased by 24 % during the period considered, the UI’s production, sales volume and market share increased over the same period. At the same time, the volume and market share of imports from the PRC decreased. However, the UI could benefit from the measures to a certain extent as the Chinese pressure on the sales prices did not allow them to have profits nor to reach their target profit.

         5.   Conclusion on the economic situation of the UI

               (64)

               Furfuraldehyde from the Dominican Republic is not available on the free Union market. Therefore, no indication was found that these imports would have contributed to the precarious situation of the UI. With regard to the imports of other third countries their volumes decreased substantially to such a level that, even if made at very low prices, their effect cannot be considered to be significant.

               (65)

               The measures against the PRC have had a positive impact on the economic situation of the UI, since most of the injury indicators showed a positive development: production, sales volume and sales value increased. Despite the decreasing consumption, the UI managed to increase its market share. Profitability, however, decreased substantially during the RIP. The UI has not been in a position to achieve the target profit, set at the original investigation as being 5 % to ensure its development. In that sense, it is concluded that the UI has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation and that its financial situation remains vulnerable.

         F.   LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF INJURY

               (66)

               Recitals 39 and 40 above concluded that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a significant increase of dumped exports from the PRC to the Union.

               (67)

               As mentioned above, the Chinese producers have the potential to redirect large export volumes to the Union market if measures were repealed. According to the review request, the Chinese production capacity reached 320 000 tonnes in 2009 with a spare capacity of at least 20 000 tonnes. Moreover, it seems that other export markets, such as Japan, Thailand and the USA, could not absorb that spare capacity, which therefore would most probably be directed to the Union market.

               (68)

               With regard to prices, the Chinese export statistics show that the price of the product concerned to the USA was similar to that of the exports to the Union under IPR. To other export markets Chinese prices were higher.

               (69)

               However given that the Chinese prices undercut those of the UI by 11 %, if measures were allowed to lapse, it is likely that the Chinese exporters will continue their practices in order to regain the lost market share. Such behaviour coupled with their ability to deliver significant quantities of the product concerned to the Union market would lead to a very negative impact on the UI and in particular on its profitability.

               (70)

               On the basis of the above, it is concluded that a repeal of measures would in all likelihood lead to a recurrence of injury resulting from the dumped imports from the PRC.

         G.   UNION INTEREST

   1.   Preliminary remark

               (71)

               In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the maintenance of the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole.

               (72)

               The determination of Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, i.e. those of the UI, the importers/traders as well as the users and suppliers of the product concerned.

               (73)

               In the previous investigations the adoption of measures was considered not to be against the interest of the Union. Furthermore, the present investigation is an expiry review, thus analysing a situation in which anti-dumping measures are in place.

               (74)

               On this basis it was examined whether, despite the conclusion on the likelihood of continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury, there are compelling reasons which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Union interest to maintain measures in this particular case.

         2.   Interest of the UI

               (75)

               The UI has proven to be a viable industry, able to adapt to changing conditions on the market. This was confirmed in particular by the positive development of production and sales in a context of decreasing consumption in the Union. However, due to the enormous pressure on the sales prices, profitability could not follow the same positive trend.

               (76)

               Given the existing spare capacity for furfuraldehyde in the PRC, combined with the fact that other export markets (such as Japan, Thailand and the USA) cannot absorb that spare capacity, if the measures were allowed to lapse, the Chinese exporters would in all likelihood try to regain their lost market share by continuing their dumping behaviour in the Union market.

               (77)

               Therefore, without the continuation of anti-dumping measures, the situation of the UI will in all likelihood severely deteriorate due to low-priced dumped Chinese exports as explained in recitals 65 to 68.

         3.   Interest of importers

               (78)

               Only one importer in the Union cooperated in the proceeding: IFC, a company located in the Netherlands and owned by a producer of furfuraldehyde in the Dominican Republic. IFC, is the only active importer of furfuraldehyde in the Union, a few other companies only import the product concerned occasionally. IFC is the major player in the Union market of furfuraldehyde (and of furfuryl alcohol) since it represents around 80 % of the consumption in the Union. IFC imports from the Dominican Republic, from the PRC under IPR and from other third countries. Additionally IFC is the main customer of the UI buying approximately 32 % of their total sales. The furfuraldehyde purchased is then further processed into furfuryl alcohol by TFC, IFC’s related company in Geel, Belgium.

               (79)

               This importer is fairly neutral regarding the proceeding as on the one hand it would like to have access to Chinese furfuraldehyde without any restrictions and the burden of completing the customs requirements for the IPR, and on the other hand it would want the UI to be maintained in order to source the product concerned at short notice. Moreover the continuation of measures removes competition with the imports from its parent producer in the Dominican Republic and consolidates the group’s stronghold on both the furfuraldehyde and furfuryl alcohol markets (including IPR) in the Union.

         4.   Interest of users

               (80)

               The Commission sent out questionnaires to 27 industrial users of furfuraldehyde. Only three users cooperated in the proceeding however they did not source furfuradehyde in the PRC but bought it directly from the UI. For these users the importance of furfuraldehyde in their business, oil refining or the lube oils industry, is negligible. Therefore they do not feel particularly affected by the anti-dumping measures.

         5.   Conclusion on Union interest

               (81)

               Taking into account the above, it is concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the maintenance of the current anti-dumping measures.

         H.   ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

               (82)

               All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the existing measures be maintained. They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure. Relevant comments submitted were analysed but have not led to the alteration of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to maintain the anti-dumping measures.

               (83)

               It follows from the above that, as provided for by Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 639/2005 on imports of furfuraldehyde originating in the PRC should be maintained. These measures consist of a specific duty.

               (84)

               However, given that this specific duty was established on the basis of the findings of the original investigation in 1995 and never revised, it has been considered appropriate to assess if the level of the duty is still relevant. In that respect, the Commission will give consideration to initiate ex officio an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of 2-furaldehyde (also known as furfuraldehyde or furfural) currently falling within CN code 2932 12 00 originating in the People’s Republic of China.
   2.   The amount of duty applicable is EUR 352 per tonne.
   3.   In cases where goods have been damaged before entry into free circulation and, therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of the customs value pursuant to Article 145 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (7), the amount of the anti-dumping duty, calculated on the basis of paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning of the price actually paid or payable.
   4.   Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 4 May 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         MARTONYI J.

      (1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ L 15, 21.1.1995, p. 11.

      (3)  OJ L 328, 22.12.1999, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 107, 28.4.2005, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ C 16, 22.1.2010, p. 40.

      (6)  OJ C 107, 27.4.2010, p. 10.

      (7)  OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 541/2013 of 13 June 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

text:
               14.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 162/5

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 541/2013
   of 13 June 2013
   establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),
   Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

               (2)

               The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to this Regulation.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 13 June 2013.

            For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
         Jerzy PLEWA

            Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

      (1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

      ANNEX
      Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

                  (EUR/100 kg)

                  CN code

                  Third country code (1)

                  Standard import value

                  0702 00 00

                  MK

                  55,8

                  TN

                  30,0

                  TR

                  69,6

                  ZZ

                  51,8

                  0707 00 05

                  EG

                  172,5

                  MK

                  28,7

                  TR

                  142,5

                  ZZ

                  114,6

                  0709 93 10

                  TR

                  142,7

                  ZZ

                  142,7

                  0805 50 10

                  AR

                  103,9

                  TR

                  115,2

                  ZA

                  114,0

                  ZZ

                  111,0

                  0808 10 80

                  AR

                  152,2

                  BR

                  108,3

                  CL

                  127,0

                  CN

                  96,2

                  NZ

                  138,5

                  US

                  161,5

                  ZA

                  111,2

                  ZZ

                  127,8

                  0809 10 00

                  IL

                  342,4

                  TR

                  198,3

                  ZZ

                  270,4

                  0809 29 00

                  TR

                  408,9

                  US

                  752,9

                  ZZ

                  580,9

                  0809 30

                  IL

                  214,0

                  MA

                  207,9

                  TR

                  196,9

                  ZZ

                  206,3

                  0809 40 05

                  CL

                  118,6

                  IL

                  308,9

                  ZZ

                  213,8

         (1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘ZZ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/905 of 10 June 2015 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pecorino Toscano (PDO)]

text:
               13.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 148/7

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/905
   of 10 June 2015
   approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pecorino Toscano (PDO)]
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Pecorino Toscano’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 (2) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 306/2010 (3).

               (2)

               Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union
                   (4) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

               (3)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Pecorino Toscano’ (PDO) are hereby approved.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 10 June 2015.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1263/96 of 1 July 1996 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 19).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 306/2010 of 14 April 2010 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pecorino Toscano (PDO)) (OJ L 94, 15.4.2010, p. 19).

      (4)  OJ C 18, 21.1.2015, p. 12.


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 of 13 January 2012 on marketing standards for olive oil

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 12/14

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 29/2012
   of 13 January 2012
   on marketing standards for olive oil
   (codification)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Union,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 113, paragraph 1, point (a), and Article 121, first paragraph, point (a), in conjunction with Article 4,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (2) has been substantially amended several times (3). In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Regulation should be codified.

               (2)

               Olive oil has certain properties, in particular organoleptic and nutritional properties, which, taking into account its production costs, allow it access to a relatively high-price market compared with most other vegetable fats. In view of this market situation, marketing standards should be laid down for olive oil containing, in particular, specific labelling rules supplementing those laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4), and in particular the rules laid down in Article 2 thereof.

               (3)

               To guarantee the authenticity of the olive oils sold, packaging for the retail trade should be small and have an adequate closing system. However, the Member States should be allowed to authorise larger packaging for collective establishments.

               (4)

               Besides the compulsory descriptions for the various categories of olive oil provided for in Article 118 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, consumers should be informed about the types of olive oil offered.

               (5)

               As a result of agricultural traditions and local extraction and blending practices directly marketable virgin olive oils may be of quite different taste and quality depending on their geographical origin. This may result in price differences within the same category that disturb the market. There are no substantial differences linked to origin in other categories of edible olive oil, and so indicating the designation of origin on the immediate packaging of such oil may lead consumers to believe that quality differences do exist. In order not to distort the market in edible olive oils, an obligatory Union regime should therefore be established for designations of origin, which should be restricted to extra virgin and virgin olive oils which satisfy precise conditions. Optional arrangements implemented until 2009 proved not to be sufficient to avoid misleading consumers as to the real characteristics of virgin oils in this regard. In addition, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (5) established traceability rules, applicable since 1 January 2005. The experience gained by operators and administrations in this matter allowed making the labelling of the origin compulsory for extra virgin and virgin olive oil.

               (6)

               Existing trade marks including geographical references may continue to be used provided they have been officially registered in the past in accordance with the first Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (6), or Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (7).

               (7)

               A regional designation of origin may be covered by a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) under Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (8). Designations indicating a regional origin should be reserved for PDOs or PGIs so as to avoid confusion among consumers potentially leading to market disturbances. In the case of imported olive oils, the rules on non-preferential origin provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (9) must be complied with.

               (8)

               If the designation of origin of virgin olive oil refers to the Union or a Member State, it should be borne in mind that not only the olives used but also the extraction techniques and practices influence the quality and taste of the oil. The designation of origin must thus refer to the geographical area in which the olive oil was obtained, which is generally the area in which the oil was extracted from the olives. However, in certain cases the oil is extracted at a place that is not the same as that where the olives were harvested and this information should be stated on the packaging or labels attached to the packaging to ensure that consumers are not misled and the market in olive oil is not disturbed.

               (9)

               In the Union, a significant share of extra virgin and virgin olive oils is composed of blends of oils originating from various Member States and third countries. Simple provisions should be laid down for the labelling of the origin of such blends.

               (10)

               Under Directive 2000/13/EC, indications shown on the labelling may not mislead the purchaser, particularly as to the characteristics of the olive oil concerned, or by attributing to it properties which it does not possess, or by suggesting that it possesses special characteristics when in fact most oils possess such characteristics. Certain commonly used, optional indications that are specific to olive oil also require harmonised rules to precisely define such claims and ensure that their accuracy can be verified. Accordingly, the concepts of ‘cold pressing’ and ‘cold extraction’ should correspond to a technically defined traditional production method. Certain terms describing the organoleptic characteristics referring to taste and/or smell of extra virgin and virgin olive oils have been defined by the International Olive Council (IOC) in its revised method for the organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oils. The use of such terms on the labelling of extra virgin and virgin olive oils should be reserved to oils that have been assessed following the corresponding method of analysis. Transitional arrangements are needed for certain operators presently using the reserved terms. Reference to acidity in isolation wrongly suggests a scale of absolute quality which is misleading for consumers since this factor represents a qualitative value only in relation to the other characteristics of the olive oil concerned. Consequently, in view of the proliferation of certain indications and of their economic significance, objective criteria for their uses should be established in order to introduce clarity into the olive oil market.

               (11)

               Steps should be taken to ensure that foodstuffs containing olive oil do not take advantage of consumers by highlighting the reputation of olive oil without clearly specifying the real composition of the product. The percentage of olive oil and certain indications specific to products consisting exclusively of a blend of vegetable oils should therefore be clearly shown on the labelling. In addition, account should be taken of the special provisions laid down in certain regulations specific to olive oil products.

               (12)

               The names of the categories of olive oil correspond to physico-chemical and organoleptic characteristics which are set out in Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis (10). All other indications appearing on the labelling should be corroborated by objective elements in order to ensure that consumers are not misled and that competition on the markets in the oils concerned is not distorted.

               (13)

               Within the framework of the system of checks laid down in Article 113(3), second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the Member States should specify the evidence to be provided and the financial penalties incurred in the case of the different terms that can be used on labelling. Without ruling out any possibilities a priori, such evidence could include established facts, results of analyses or reliable recordings, and administrative or accounting information.

               (14)

               Since checks on undertakings responsible for labelling must be made in the Member State in which they are established, there should be a procedure for administrative cooperation between the Commission and the Member States where the oil is marketed.

               (15)

               In order to evaluate the arrangements provided for in this Regulation, the Member States concerned should report on the circumstances and difficulties encountered.

               (16)

               The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   1.   Without prejudice to Directive 2000/13/EC and Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, this Regulation lays down specific standards for retail-stage marketing of the olive oils and olive-pomace oils referred to in points 1(a) and (b), 3 and 6 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
   2.   For the purposes of this Regulation, retail stage means the sale to the final consumer of oil as referred to in paragraph 1, presented in the natural state or incorporated in a foodstuff.
   Article 2
   Oils as referred to in Article 1(1) shall be presented to the final consumer in packaging of a maximum capacity of 5 litres. Such packaging shall be fitted with an opening system that can no longer be sealed after the first time it is opened and shall be labelled in accordance with Articles 3 to 6.
   However, in the case of oils intended for consumption in restaurants, hospitals, canteens and other similar collective establishments, the Member States may set a maximum capacity exceeding 5 litres for packaging depending on the type of establishment concerned.
   Article 3
   Descriptions in accordance with Article 118 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be considered as the name under which the product is sold as referred to in Article 3(1)(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC.
   The labelling of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) shall bear, in clear and indelible lettering, in addition to the description referred to in the first paragraph of this Article, but not necessarily close to it, the following information on the category of oil:

               (a)

               extra virgin olive oil:
               ‘superior category olive oil obtained directly from olives and solely by mechanical means’;

               (b)

               virgin olive oil:
               ‘olive oil obtained directly from olives and solely by mechanical means’;

               (c)

               olive oil composed of refined olive oils and virgin olive oils:
               ‘oil comprising exclusively olive oils that have undergone refining and oils obtained directly from olives’;

               (d)

               olive-pomace oil:

                              ‘oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives’,

                           or

                              ‘oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace and oils obtained directly from olives’.

         Article 4
   1.   Extra virgin olive oil and virgin olive oil as defined in points 1(a) and (b) of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall bear a designation of origin on the labelling.
   Products defined in points 3 and 6 of Annex XVI to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall not bear any designation of origin on the labelling.
   For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘designation of origin’ means reference to a geographical area on the packaging or the label attached to the packaging.
   2.   Designations of origin referred to in paragraph 1 shall only consist of:

               (a)

               in the case of olive oils originating, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, from one Member State or third country, a reference to the Member State, to the Union or to the third country, as appropriate; or

               (b)

               in the case of blends of olive oils originating, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, from more than one Member State or third country, one of the following mentions, as appropriate:

                           (i)

                           ‘blend of olive oils of European Union origin’ or a reference to the Union;

                           (ii)

                           ‘blend of olive oils not of European Union origin’ or a reference to origin outside the Union;

                           (iii)

                           ‘blend of olive oils of European Union origin and not of European Union origin’ or a reference to origin within the Union and outside the Union; or

               (c)

               a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication referred to in Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, in accordance with the provisions of the product specification concerned.

         3.   The names of brands or firms whose registration was applied for no later than 31 December 1998 under Directive 89/104/EEC or no later than 31 May 2002 under Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (11) shall not be considered to be designations of origin covered by this Regulation.
   4.   In the case of import from a third country, the designation of origin shall be determined in accordance with Articles 22 to 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
   5.   The designation of origin mentioning a Member State or the Union shall correspond to the geographical area in which the olives concerned were harvested or in which the mill where the oil was extracted from the olives is situated.
   If the olives have been harvested in a Member State or third country other than that in which the mill where the oil was extracted from the olives is situated, the designation of origin shall contain the following wording: ‘(extra) virgin olive oil obtained in (the Union or the name of the Member State concerned) from olives harvested in (the Union or the name of the Member State or third country concerned)’.
   Article 5
   Among the optional indications which may appear on the labelling of oil as referred to in Article 1(1), those laid down in this Article shall comply with the following respective requirements:

               (a)

               the indication ‘first cold pressing’ may appear only for extra virgin or virgin olive oils obtained at a temperature below 27 °C from a first mechanical pressing of the olive paste by a traditional extraction system using hydraulic presses;

               (b)

               the indication ‘cold extraction’ may appear only for extra virgin or virgin olive oils obtained at a temperature below 27 °C by percolation or centrifugation of the olive paste;

               (c)

               indications of organoleptic properties referring to taste and/or smell may appear only for extra virgin or virgin olive oils; the terms referred to in point 3.3 of Annex XII to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 may appear on the labelling only if they are based on the results of an assessment carried out following the method provided for in that Annex;

               (d)

               indication of the acidity or maximum acidity may appear only if it is accompanied by an indication, in lettering of the same size and in the same visual field, of the peroxide value, the wax content and the ultraviolet absorption, determined in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91.

         Products sold under trademarks whose registration was applied for no later than 1 March 2008 and which contain at least one of the terms referred to in point 3.3 of Annex XII to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 may not comply with the requirements of Article 5, first paragraph, point (c) of this Regulation until 1 November 2012.
   Article 6
   1.   Where the presence of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) in a blend of olive oil and other vegetable oils is highlighted on the labelling elsewhere than in the list of ingredients, using words, images or graphics, the blend concerned must bear the following trade description: ‘Blend of vegetable oils (or the specific names of the vegetable oils concerned) and olive oil’, directly followed by the percentage of olive oil in the blend.
   The presence of olive oil may be highlighted by images or graphics on the labelling of a blend as referred to in the first subparagraph only where it accounts for more than 50 % of the blend concerned.
   Member States may prohibit the production in their territory of blends of olive oil and other vegetable oils referred to in the first subparagraph for internal consumption. However, they may not prohibit the marketing in their territory of such blends coming from other countries and they may not prohibit the production in their territory of such blends for marketing in another Member State or for exportation.
   2.   With the exception of tuna in olive oil referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 (12) and sardines in olive oil referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 (13), where the presence of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation in a foodstuff, other than those referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, is highlighted on the labelling elsewhere than in the list of ingredients, using words, images or graphics, the trade description of the foodstuff shall be directly followed by the percentage of oils as referred to in Article 1(1) of this Regulation relative to the total net weight of the foodstuff.
   The percentage of added olive oil relative to the total net weight of the foodstuff may be replaced by the percentage of added olive oil relative to the total weight of fats, adding the words ‘percentage of fats’.
   3.   The descriptions referred to in the first paragraph of Article 3 can be replaced by the words ‘olive oil’ on the labelling of products referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.
   However, where olive-pomace oil is present, the words ‘olive oil’ shall be replaced by the words ‘olive-pomace oil’.
   4.   The information referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3 is not required on the labelling of products referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.
   Article 7
   At the request of the Member State in which the address of the manufacturer, packer or seller appearing on the labelling is located, the party concerned shall supply documentation in support of the indications referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, based on one or more of the following elements:

               (a)

               factual elements or scientifically established facts;

               (b)

               results of analyses or automatic recordings taken on representative samples;

               (c)

               administrative or accounting information kept in accordance with Union and/or national rules.

         The Member State concerned shall allow a tolerance between the indications referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6 and appearing on the labelling, and the conclusions reached on the basis of the supporting documentation presented and/or comparative expert opinions, taking account of the accuracy and ‘repeatability’ of the methods and the documentation concerned and, where applicable, the accuracy and ‘repeatability’ of the comparative expert opinions.
   Article 8
   1.   Each Member State shall forward the name and address of the body or bodies responsible for monitoring the application of this Regulation to the Commission, which shall inform the other Member States and any interested parties who so request.
   2.   The Member State in which the address of the manufacturer, packer or seller appearing on the labelling is located shall, pursuant to a verification request, take samples before the end of the month following that of the request and verify the truth of the indications on the labelling concerned. This request may be sent by:

               (a)

               the competent Commission departments;

               (b)

               an operators’ organisation in that Member State referred to in Article 125 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007;

               (c)

               the control body of another Member State.

         3.   Requests as referred to in paragraph 2 shall be accompanied by all information needed for the requested verification, and in particular:

               (a)

               the date of sampling or purchase of the oil in question;

               (b)

               the name or business name and address of the undertaking where the sample was taken or where the oil concerned was purchased;

               (c)

               the number of batches concerned;

               (d)

               a copy of all labels appearing on the packaging of the oil concerned;

               (e)

               the results of analysis or of the other comparative expert opinions indicating the methods used and the name and address of the laboratory or expert concerned;

               (f)

               where applicable, the name of the supplier of the oil in question as declared by the marketing outlet.

         4.   Before the end of the third month following that of the request referred to in paragraph 2, the Member State concerned shall inform the requester of the reference number allocated to it and of the action taken.
   Article 9
   1.   The Member States shall take the necessary measures, including as regards the system of penalties to ensure compliance with this Regulation.
   The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the measures taken to that end no later than 31 December 2002 and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.
   The Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia shall notify the Commission of the measures referred to in paragraph 1 no later than 31 December 2004, and of amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.
   Bulgaria and Romania shall communicate to the Commission the measures referred to in the first paragraph no later than 31 December 2010, and the amendments to those measures before the end of the month following that in which they are adopted.
   2.   For the purpose of verifying indications as referred to in Articles 4, 5 and 6, the Member States concerned may introduce arrangements for approving establishments whose packaging facilities are situated in their territory.
   Approval shall be granted and alphanumeric identification allocated to any establishment so requesting which meets the following conditions:

               (a)

               possesses packaging facilities;

               (b)

               undertakes to collect and keep the supporting documentation required by the Member State under Article 7;

               (c)

               has a storage system which makes it possible to check the provenance of oils bearing a designation of origin, to the satisfaction of the Member State concerned.

         The label shall, where applicable, bear the alphanumeric identification of the approved packaging plant.
   Article 10
   The Member States concerned shall forward to the Commission no later than 31 March each year, a report containing the following information for the previous year:

               (a)

               requests for verifications received in accordance with Article 8(2);

               (b)

               verifications undertaken and those commenced in previous marketing years and still underway;

               (c)

               the follow-up to the verifications carried out and the penalties applied.

         The report shall present this information by year in which verification was undertaken and by category of infringement. Where applicable, it shall stipulate any specific difficulties encountered and proposed improvements to controls.
   Article 11
   Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 is repealed.
   References to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex II.
   Article 12
   1.   This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
   2.   Products which have been legally manufactured and labelled in the Union or legally imported into the Union and put into free circulation before 1 July 2012 may be marketed until all stocks are used up.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 13 January 2012.

            For the Commission

            The President

         José Manuel BARROSO

      (1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 27.

      (3)  See Annex I.

      (4)  OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

      (5)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.

      (7)  OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1.

      (8)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

      (9)  OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

      (10)  OJ L 248, 5.9.1991, p. 1.

      (11)  OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.

      (12)  OJ L 163, 17.6.1992, p. 1.

      (13)  OJ L 212, 22.7.1989, p. 79.

      ANNEX I

         Repealed Regulation with list of its successive amendments

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002
                  (OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 27)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2002
                  (OJ L 300, 5.11.2002, p. 3)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003
                  (OJ L 164, 2.7.2003, p. 12)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 406/2004
                  (OJ L 67, 5.3.2004, p. 10)

                  Only Article 3

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/2004
                  (OJ L 312, 9.10.2004, p. 7)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1044/2006
                  (OJ L 187, 8.7.2006, p. 20)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 632/2008
                  (OJ L 173, 3.7.2008, p. 16)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1183/2008
                  (OJ L 319, 29.11.2008, p. 51)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 182/2009
                  (OJ L 63, 7.3.2009, p. 6)

                  Commission Regulation (EU) No 596/2010
                  (OJ L 173, 8.7.2010, p. 27)

      ANNEX II

         Correlation table

                  Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002

                  This Regulation

                  Articles 1 to 8

                  Articles 1 to 8

                  Article 9, paragraph 1

                  Article 9, paragraph 1

                  Article 9, paragraph 2

                  Article 9, paragraph 2

                  Article 9, paragraph 3

                  —

                  Article 10

                  Article 10

                  Article 11

                  —

                  —

                  Article 11

                  Article 12, paragraph 1

                  Article 12, paragraph 1

                  Article 12, paragraph 2, first indent

                  —

                  Article 12, paragraph 2, second indent

                  —

                  Article 12, paragraph 2, third indent

                  —

                  Article 12, paragraph 2, fourth indent

                  —

                  Article 12, paragraph 2, fifth indent

                  Article 12, paragraph 2

                  —

                  Annex I

                  —

                  Annex II


title: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/102 of 19 January 2016 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Eichsfelder Feldgieker/Eichsfelder Feldkieker (PGI))

text:
               28.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 21/66

         COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/102
   of 19 January 2016
   approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Eichsfelder Feldgieker/Eichsfelder Feldkieker (PGI))
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Germany's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Eichsfelder Feldgieker’/‘Eichsfelder Feldkieker’, registered under Commission Regulation (EU) No 452/2013 (2).

               (2)

               Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation (3).

               (3)

               As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
   Article 1
   The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Eichsfelder Feldgieker’/‘Eichsfelder Feldkieker’ (PGI) are hereby approved.
   Article 2
   This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Done at Brussels, 19 January 2016.

            For the Commission,

            On behalf of the President,

         Phil HOGAN

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 452/2013 of 7 May 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Eichsfelder Feldgieker/Eichsfelder Feldkieker (PGI)) (OJ L 133, 17.5.2013, p. 5).

      (3)  OJ C 281, 26.8.2015, p. 12.