Official Journal C 197 of the European Union

Volume 62 English edition Information and Notices 13 June 2019

Contents

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 197/01 Euro exchange rates ...... 1

2019/C 197/02 Commission Implementing Decision of 4 June 2019 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a n ame in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308 /2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Vigneti delle Dolomiti/Weinberg Dolomiten (PGI)) ...... 2

2019/C 197/03 Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 July 2019 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1)) ...... 20

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2019/C 197/04 Notice of a tender procedure for the granting of licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Dinaric area ...... 21

2019/C 197/05 Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) — Establishment of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (Regulation (EC) No 1082 /2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19)) ...... 23

EN NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2019/C 197/06 Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on state aid issues ...... 25

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2019/C 197/07 Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 24 January 2019 in the case of D and E (Case E-2/19) ...... 35

2019/C 197/08 Action brought on 26 February 2019 by Nettbuss AS against Konkurrenten.no AS (Case E-1/17 Costs) 36 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/1

IV (Notices)

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1) 12 June 2019 (2019/C 197/01)

1 euro =

Currency Exchange rate Currency Exchange rate USD US dollar 1,1323 CAD Canadian dollar 1,5059 JPY Japanese yen 122,72 HKD Hong Kong dollar 8,8570 DKK Danish krone 7,4678 NZD New Zealand dollar 1,7206 GBP Pound sterling 0,88805 SGD Singapore dollar 1,5445 SEK Swedish krona 10,6800 KRW South Korean won 1 337,81 ZAR South African rand 16,7129 CHF Swiss franc 1,1252 CNY Chinese yuan renminbi 7,8346 ISK Iceland króna 141,50 HRK Croatian kuna 7,4130 NOK Norwegian krone 9,7820 IDR Indonesian rupiah 16 125,56 BGN Bulgarian lev 1,9558 MYR Malaysian ringgit 4,7075 CZK Czech koruna 25,614 PHP Philippine peso 58,815 HUF Hungarian forint 321,43 RUB Russian rouble 73,3013 PLN Polish zloty 4,2608 THB Thai baht 35,379 RON Romanian leu 4,7250 BRL Brazilian real 4,3661 TRY Turkish lira 6,5550 MXN Mexican peso 21,6615 AUD Australian dollar 1,6292 INR Indian rupee 78,4910

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. C 197/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 4 June 2019 on the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of an application for amendment of a specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Vigneti delle Dolomiti/Weinberg Dolomiten (PGI)) (2019/C 197/02)

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), and in particular Article 97(3) thereof, Whereas: (1) Italy has sent an application for amendment of the specification for the name ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’/‘Weinberg Dolomiten’ in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. (2) The Commission has examined the application and concluded that the conditions laid down in Articles 93 to 96, Article 97(1), and Articles 100, 101 and 102 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 have been met. (3) In order to allow for the presentation of statements of opposition in accordance with Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the application for amendment of the specification for the name ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’/ ‘Weinberg Dolomiten’ should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article The application for amendment of the specification for the name ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’/‘Weinberg Dolomiten’ (PGI), in accordance with Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, is contained in the Annex to this Decision. In accordance with Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the publication of this Decision confers the right to oppose the amendment of the specification referred to in the first paragraph of this Article within two months of the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 4 June 2019.

For the Commission Phil HOGAN Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/3

ANNEX

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION ‘VIGNETI DELLE DOLOMITI’/‘WEINBERG DOLOMITEN’ PGI-IT-A0755-AM02 Date of application: 14.4.2015 1. Rules applicable to the amendment Article 105 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Non-minor modification

2. Description and reasons for amendment 2.1. Addition of new categories of sparkling wines The amendment concerns the addition of the following categories of sparkling wine:

— white and rosé ‘sparkling wine’;

— white and rosé ‘quality sparkling wine’;

— white ‘quality aromatic sparkling wine’.

Reasons: For over a century, many leading sparkling wines have been produced in the province of Trento using the method of secondary fermentation in the bottle; more recently, a significant number of generic and varietal sparkling wines started to be produced in the 1950s/1960s using the method of secondary fermentation in large containers (Charmat process). In the province of Trento alone, this production currently amounts to around 3,5 million bottles, a considerable share of which is eligible, by dint of having the required characteristics, to use the PGI in question.

It is proposed, by means of this amendment request, that the above segment be given a higher level of protection and a closer link with the territory of origin by including it in the product specification for the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI, making it subject to the same rules that have long applied to still and semi-sparkling wines.

A small number of undertakings account for most of the production of sparkling wines using the Charmat pro cess. Where the output of holdings is low, it is however increasingly common for them to have third-party estab lishments carry out the processing on their behalf, on account of the high investment costs necessary for holdings to obtain the systems and technologies required to carry out this type of production. There is therefore an increas ing number of holdings that wish to further enhance their own wines by processing them into sparkling wine using secondary fermentation in autoclaves.

This is also why it was proposed that processing into sparkling wine can be carried out anywhere in the Veneto and Lombardy regions by holdings able to demonstrate a tradition of making ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI wines and/or processing them into semi-sparkling wines over the last five wine years.

As well as providing consumers with a precise indication of the geographical origin of the product, the possibility of classifying these products under the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI should also justify an increase in the value of the product in terms of its positioning on the price scale, with an adjustment of both the price per bottle and, as a consequence, the value of the grapes used.

Furthermore, the distinction conferred by the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI name would allow local production to stand out from the wide range of anonymous generic or varietal sparkling wines and avoid the pricing policy imposed by the widespread presence of such products on the market.

This amendment concerns Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the product specification and the following sections of the Single Document: points 2.3. Category of grapevine products, 2.4. Description of the wines, 2.5.1. Specific oenological practices and 2.8. Link with the geographical area.

2.2. Inclusion of new varieties in the combination of grape varieties The amendment concerns the inclusion in the combination of grape varieties of the following recently introduced varieties in the relevant provinces located within the production area of the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI:

— BRONNER (B)/(Bolzano and Trento);

— CARMENÈRE (N)/(Bolzano); C 197/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

— DIOLINOIR (N)/(Bolzano);

— HELIOS (B)/(Trento);

— JOHANNITER (B)/(Trento);

— SOLARIS (B)/(Bolzano and Trento);

— TURCA (N)/(Trento).

These new grape varieties are therefore added to those already permitted for the relevant provinces.

The proposed amendment is particularly significant, as these interspecific hybrids of Vitis Vinifera and other species of the genus Vitis are naturally resistant to the main vine pathogens (downy mildew and powdery mildew) and thus do not require chemical treatments; this particular characteristic means that they are mainly grown close to ‘sensitive’ areas, such as schools, built-up areas, sports facilities, cycle routes, etc.

Therefore, taking into account these environmental qualities, the increase in the area planted with the varieties in question and the favourable results obtained by the vinification of these innovative varieties, this amendment aims to provide these products too with the necessary level of recognisability and protection.

The possibility to put PGI wines on the market with the names of such varieties on their labels would enhance their value.

The possibility of mentioning these varieties on the label, together with the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ geographical indication, would enhance the value of individual products. It should be borne in mind that sometimes these vari eties are little known or appreciated by consumers because, until now, it has not been possible to mention them on the labels of the wines concerned.

This amendment concerns Article 2 of the product specification and Section 2 of the Single Document, point 2.7. Main wine grape varieties.

2.3. Production of wines bearing the name of the ‘Bianchetta Trevigiana’ or ‘Pavana’ grape varieties on the label Types of wine bearing the names of the following grape varieties on their labels are to be added to the ‘Wine’ and ‘Semi-sparkling wine’ categories.

— BIANCHETTA TREVIGIANA (B);

— PAVANA (N).

Reasons: The proposed amendment allows wines obtained from the ‘Bianchetta Trevigiana’ and ‘Pavana’ varieties to be produced and those varieties to be specified on the label in accordance with the relevant European Union rules.

This is because the varieties in question were already included in the combination of grape varieties set out in the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI product specification for production of the white and red/rosé types respectively; the purpose of this amendment, therefore, is to allow the names of those two varieties to be indicated on the labels of the relevant wines, in the interest of the producers.

Specifically, in this section of the Single Document, the two grape varieties mentioned above are not included in the list of grape varieties that are prohibited from being specified on labelling.

This amendment concerns Article 2 of the product specification and Section 2 of the Single Document, point 2.9. Further conditions.

2.4. Derogations allowing wine to be processed into sparkling and semi-sparkling wine in neighbouring regions The product specification already allows the normal vinification processes for still wines to be carried out in the neighbouring regions (throughout Veneto and Lombardy) provided that the holdings concerned can demonstrate an uninterrupted tradition of making ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI wines over the last five wine-growing years.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow wine to be processed into semi-sparkling and sparkling wine in the same area as that allowed for still wines.

Reasons: The possibility of processing wine into sparkling and semi-sparkling wine in the neighbouring regions is justified by and consistent with the fact that normal winemaking processes may be carried out in these regions (as already laid down in the specification). It must be borne in mind that such processes are not considered as post- vinification stages, but rather as an integral part of wine production, and as such can only be carried out within the identified wine production area. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/5

Where holdings have a low output of semi-sparkling and sparkling wines, it is also increasingly common for them to have third-party establishments carry out the processing on their behalf, on account of the high investment costs necessary for holdings to obtain the systems and technologies required to carry out such processing. It is the usual practice for local operators to ask firms in the neighbouring regions of Veneto and Lombardy to carry out this processing, especially in the case of low output.

This amendment concerns Article 5 of the product specification and Section 2 of the Single Document, point 2.9. Further conditions.

2.5. Oenological practice of blending wines and grape musts The paragraph on the oenological practice of blending wines and grape musts, including with products originating outside the area (up to a maximum of 15 %), is reworded to rule out the possibility of using, even only partially, wines obtained from grape varieties other than those which may be grown in the provinces of Trento, Bolzano and Belluno.

Reasons: The amendment aims to provide operators with more precise information, although it is more restrictive compared to the previous specification, on the possibilities for using the traditional practice of blending. In particu lar, it aims to prevent the practice of blending using grape varieties other than those that may be grown in the area from adversely affecting the characterisation and the typical characteristics of the wines in question.

This amendment concerns Article 5 of the product specification and Section 2 of the Single Document, point 2.5.1. Specific oenological practices.

SINGLE DOCUMENT 1. Name to be registered Vigneti delle Dolomiti

Weinberg Dolomiten

2. Geographical indication type PGI — Protected Geographical Indication

3. Categories of grapevine products 1. Wine

4. Sparkling wine

5. Quality sparkling wine

6. Quality aromatic sparkling wine

8. Semi-sparkling wine

15. Wine from raisined grapes

16. Wine of overripe grapes

4. Description of the wine(s) Vigneti delle Dolomiti Bianco belonging to the ‘Wine’ and ‘Semi-sparkling wine’ categories, with or without indication of one or two grape varieties These white wines of the different types demonstrate a range of colours ranging from straw yellow to golden yellow, sometimes with hints of pale green or copper as in the case of Pinot Grigio.

The aromas of the wines are characterised by their subtlety, with fruity notes that generally reflect the main grape variety used in the wine, but also the typical ‘personality’ of mountain products.

The taste of the wines, which can range from dry to sweet, is harmonious, well-structured and flavourful, as well as being well-balanced in terms of alcohol content and acidity. C 197/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

In the case of semi-sparkling white wine, the presence of carbon dioxide enhances its freshness and liveliness.

When released for consumption, white wines which indicate the name(s) of one or two grape varieties have, in addition to the qualities described above, the organoleptic characteristics of the relevant grape variety or varieties from which the wine has been obtained.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10 %

Minimum sugar-free extract: 14,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 3,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

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

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Rosato belonging to the ‘Wine’ and ‘Semi-sparkling wine’ categories, with or without indication of one or two grape varieties These rosé wines are a group of ‘ready-to-drink’ products obtained mainly from the Schiava, Merlot and Teroldego grape varieties.

These wines have a pink colour of varying intensity depending on the winemaking process and the duration of contact with the skins.

The aroma is fine and delicate with pleasant hints of fruit.

The taste is fresh and harmonious with balanced acidity, and can range from dry to sweet.

In the case of semi-sparkling wine, the presence of carbon dioxide enhances its freshness and liveliness.

When released for consumption, rosé wines which indicate the name(s) of one or two grape varieties have, in addition to the qualities described above, the organoleptic characteristics of the relevant grape variety or varieties from which the wine has been obtained.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 10 %

Minimum sugar-free extract: 15,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 3,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre) 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/7

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

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Rosso belonging to the ‘Wine’ and ‘Semi-sparkling wine’ categories, with or without indication of one or two grape varieties These wines have a ruby red colour of varying intensity, occasionally with hints of orange if aged. Their aroma is vinous, sometimes ethereal or fruity; depending on the grape variety used to produce them, they may have fruity aromas of varying intensity and well-developed if the wine is aged.

The taste is harmonious, full-bodied, sometimes bitterish and austere, and can range from dry to sweet.

The red ‘Novello’ wine expresses the aromas and flavours associated with the particular technique of carbon macer ation used to make wine from the grapes, which enhances the wine’s vinous profile and the typical notes of the grape variety.

In the case of semi-sparkling wine, the presence of carbon dioxide enhances its liveliness.

When released for consumption, red wines which indicate the name(s) of one or two grape varieties have, in addi tion to the qualities described above, the organoleptic characteristics of the relevant grape variety or varieties from which the wine has been obtained.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume:

— 11 % in the case of the ‘Vino Novello’ type

— 10 % for other types

Minimum sugar-free extract: 18,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 3,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

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

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Bianco belonging to categories (15) and (16) including with the traditional term ‘Passito’ or ‘Vino Passito’, without indication of the grape variety These wines have great personality and character. The colour ranges from golden yellow to amber.

The aroma is delicate, fine and distinctive with notes of raisined grapes, sometimes spicy.

The taste is full, harmonious, of raisin wine and sometimes alcoholic; it can range from dry to sweet.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 16 %

Minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume: 9,0 % (wine from raisined grapes) and 12,0 % (wine of overripe grapes)

Minimum sugar-free extract: 14,0 g/l C 197/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 3,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

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

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Rosato belonging to categories (15) and (16) including with the traditional term ‘Passito’ or ‘Vino Passito’, without indication of the grape variety These wines have great personality and character. The colour is pink of varying intensity, occasionally with orange tones.

The aroma is delicate, fine and distinctive with notes of raisined grapes, sometimes spicy.

The taste is full, harmonious, of raisin wine and sometimes alcoholic; it can range from dry to sweet.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 16 %

Minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume: 9,0 % (wine from raisined grapes) and 12,0 % (wine of overripe grapes)

Minimum sugar-free extract: 15,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 3,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

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

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Rosso belonging to categories (15) and (16) including with the traditional term ‘Passito’ or ‘Vino Passito’, without indication of the grape variety These wines have great personality and character. The colour is garnet red, occasionally with orange tones.

The aroma is delicate, fine and distinctive with notes of raisined grapes, sometimes spicy.

The taste is full, harmonious, of raisin wine and sometimes alcoholic; it can range from dry to sweet.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 16 % 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/9

Minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume: 9,0 % (wine from raisined grapes) and 12,0 % (wine of overripe grapes)

Minimum sugar-free extract: 18,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 3,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

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

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Bianco belonging to categories (4) Sparkling wine, (5) Quality sparkling wine and (6) Quality aromatic sparkling wine, with or without indication of one or two grape varieties The sparkling wine is characterised by a lively and persistent foam and a colour, which ranges from straw yellow to golden yellow with hints of pale green. It is distinguished by its particular qualities of subtlety and elegance. It has a distinctive, fine and delicate aroma with a h int of yeast; the quality aromatic sparkling wine has the typical aro mas of the Moscato Giallo grape variety. The taste is fine, lively and typical of the grape variety; in terms of sugar content, the taste can range from dry to sweet, i.e. with the indication from ‘brut nature’ to ‘sweet’. When released for consumption, sparkling and quality sparkling white wines, if they indicate the name(s) of one or two grape varieties have, in addition to the above characteristics, the organoleptic characteristics of the relevant grape variety or varieties from which the wine has been obtained. Quality aromatic sparkling wine, with or without indication of the grape variety, must have the organoleptic characteristics of the Moscato Giallo grape variety, from which it must be wholly obtained. Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 11,0 %

Minimum actual alcoholic strength by volume: 10,5 % (sparkling wine and quality sparkling wine) and 6,0 % (quality aromatic sparkling wine)

Minimum total acidity: 4,5 g/l expressed as tartaric acid (sparkling wine and quality sparkling wine); 5,0 g/l expressed as tartaric acid (quality aromatic sparkling wine)

Minimum sugar-free extract: 14,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum total acidity 4,5 in grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

Any analytical parameters not shown in the table below comply with the limits laid down in national and EU legislation. C 197/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

Vigneti delle Dolomiti Rosato belonging to categories (4) Sparkling wine and (5) Quality sparkling wine, with or without indication of one or two grape varieties The sparkling wine is characterised by a lively and persistent foam and a pink colour of varying intensity. It is distinguished by its particular qualities of subtlety and elegance.

It has a distinctive, fine and delicate aroma with a hint of yeast.

The taste is fine, lively and typical of the grape variety; in terms of sugar content, the taste can range from dry to sweet, i.e. with the indication from ‘brut nature’ to ‘sweet’.

When released for consumption, sparkling and quality sparkling rosé wines, if they indicate the name(s) of one or two grape varieties have, in addition to the above characteristics, the organoleptic characteristics of the relevant grape variety or varieties from which the wine has been obtained.

Minimum total alcoholic strength by volume: 11 %

Minimum sugar-free extract: 14,0 g/l

General analytical characteristics

Maximum total alcoholic strength (in % volume)

Minimum actual alcoholic strength (in % volume) 10,5

Minimum total acidity 4,5 grams per litre expressed as tartaric acid

Maximum volatile acidity (in milliequivalents per litre)

Maximum total sulphur dioxide (in milligrams per litre)

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

5. Wine making practices a. Essential oenological practices Oenological practice of blending of grape musts and wines Relevant restrictions on oenological practices

The product specification allows blending of musts and wines up to 15 %, in line with the relevant European Union legislation, with grape musts and wines, including from other Italian wine-growing areas, provided that they have been obtained from non-aromatic grape varieties classified as ‘suitable for cultivation’ or ‘under observation’ in the provinces of Belluno, Bolzano and Trento.

Oenological practice of processing into sparkling wine using the method of secondary fermentation in autoclaves Relevant restrictions on oenological practices

Processing into sparkling wine is permitted exclusively using the method of secondary fermentation in large con tainers (autoclaves).

b. Maximum yields Vigneti delle Dolomiti Bianco, Rosato and Rosso types without indication of the grape variety

23 000 kg of grapes per hectare

Vigneti delle Dolomiti obtained from the Moscato Rosa grape variety

12 000 kg of grapes per hectare 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/11

Vigneti delle Dolomiti types with indication of other permitted grape varieties

19 500 kg of grapes per hectare

6. Demarcated geographical area The production area of the grapes used to produce ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ wines covers the entire territory of the autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano and that of the province of Belluno in the Veneto Region, which are all part of the C I (B) EU wine-growing area.

7. Main wine grapes variety(ies) Cabernet Franc N. - Cabernet

Cabernet Sauvignon N. - Cabernet

Carmenère N. - Cabernet

Carmenère N. - Cabernet Italiano

Carmenère N. - Cabernet Nostrano

Casetta N.

Chardonnay B.

Franconia N.

Goldtraminer B.

Gosen N.

Groppello di Revò N. - Groppello

Kerner B.

Lagarino B.

Lambrusco a Foglia Frastagliata N. - Enantio N.

Lambrusco a Foglia Frastagliata N. - Lambrusco

Manzoni Bianco B. - Incrocio Manzoni 6.0.13 B.

Maor B.

Merlot N.

Moscato Giallo B. - Goldmuskateller

Moscato Giallo B. - Moscato

Moscato Giallo B. - Moscatellone

Moscato Rosa Rs. - Moscato delle Rose

Moscato Rosa Rs. - Rosen Muskateller

Müller Thurgau B. - Riesling x Sylvaner

Nosiola B.

Paolina B.

Pavana N. C 197/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

Petit Verdot N

Pinot Bianco B. - Pinot

Pinot Bianco B. - Pinot Blanc

Pinot Bianco B. - Weissburgunder

Pinot Bianco B. - Weiß Burgunder

Pinot Bianco B. - Weißburgunder

Pinot Grigio — Grauburgunder

Pinot Grigio — Grauer Burgunder

Pinot Grigio — Pinot

Pinot Grigio — Pinot Gris

Pinot Grigio — Ruländer

Pinot Nero N. - Blauer Spätburgunder

Pinot Nero N. - Pinot

Pinot Nero N. - Pinot Noir

Pinot Nero N. - Spätburgunder

Pinot Nero N. - Blauburgunder

Rebo N.

Rossara N.

Saint Laurent N.

Sauvignon B. - Sauvignon Blanc

Schiava Gentile N. - Kleinvernatsch

Schiava Gentile N. - Mittervernatsch

Schiava Gentile N. - Schiava

Schiava Gentile N. - Vernatsch

Schiava N.

Schiava Grigia N. - Grauvernatsch

Schiava Grigia N. - Schiava

Schiava Grigia N. - Vernatsch

Schiava Grossa N. - Edelvernatsch Gr

Schiava Grossa N. - Großvernatsch

Schiava Grossa N. - Schiava

Schiava Grossa N. - Vernatsch 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/13

Sennen N.

Sylvaner Verde B. - Grüner Sylvaner

Sylvaner Verde B. - Silvaner

Sylvaner Verde B. - Sylvaner

Syrah N. - Shiraz

Teroldego N.

Verdealbara B.

Bronner B.

Helios B.

Johanniter B.

Solaris B.

Turca N.

Turca N. - Serbina N.

Lagrein N.

Marzemino N. - Berzamino

Marzemino N. - Berzemino

Meunier N.

Negrara N.

Riesling Italico B. - Riesling

Riesling Italico B. - Welschriesling

Riesling Renano B. - Rheinrieseling

Riesling Renano B. - Riesling

Traminer Aromatico Rs. - Gewürztraminer

Trebbiano Toscano B. - Procanico

Trebbiano Toscano B. - Trebbiano

Trebbiano Toscano B. - Ugni Blanc

Veltliner B. - Gruner Veltliner

Moscato Giallo B. - Moscatello

Moscato Giallo B. - Muscat

Moscato Giallo B. - Muskateller

Malvasia Nera Lunga N. - Malvasia

Malvasia N. - Malvasier C 197/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

Malvasia N. - Roter Malvasier

Petit Manseng B.

Portoghese N. - Blauer Portugieser

Portoghese N. - Portugieser

Tannat N.

Tempranillo N.

Viogner B.

Zweigelt N.

Diolinoir N.

Barbera N.

Bianchetta Trevigiana B. - Bianchetta

Malvasia Istriana B. - Malvasia

Marzemina Grossa N. - Marzemina Bastarda

Marzemina Bianca B. - Marzemina

Moscato Bianco B. - Gelber Muskateller

Moscato Bianco B. - Moscatello

Moscato Bianco B. - Moscatellone

Moscato Bianco B. - Moscato

Moscato Bianco B. - Muscat

Moscato Bianco B. - Muskateller

Glera B. - Serprino

Glera Lunga B. - Glera

Glera Lunga B. - Serprino

Tocai Friulano B. - Tai

Trevisana Nera N.

8. Description of the link(s) Vigneti delle Dolomiti, all categories (1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 15 and 16) Natural factors relevant to the link: The area comprises Trentino, Alto Adige and the Province of Belluno in Veneto and is located in the Dolomites, an extraordinary mountain range and Unesco World Heritage Site. The area is mainly mountainous or hilly and the geology is varied as it includes mountains of different geological origin; of these the Dolomites cover the largest area. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/15

The climate is transitional between semi-continental and Alpine; the coldest months are the winter months while the warmest months are July and August. Average precipitation is 1 000 mm/year and the distribution of rainfall is typically Mediterranean with most rain falling in spring and autumn. Adequate rainfall and excellent water capacity due to the significant presence of mountains with melting snow means that soils contain enough water. The partic ular geography of the Dolomites, together with a transitional climate between the Mediterranean and Alpine cli mates, creates a unique environment in the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ IGT grape production area and distinguishes the wines produced there.

In pedological terms, the soils consist predominantly of limestone debris with a high stone content, resulting in good drainage and aeration. These soils are generally found on limestone debris in the medium to high areas of alluvial fans. The soils on the lower parts of the slopes have a l ower stone content. In some lowland areas, there are strata of accumulated colluvium and soils on moraine deposits or fluvial gravel. Soils of different geological origin are also present, as in the valleys of Valle di Cembra (porphyritic), Val d’Isarco (metamorphic-crystalline) and the central Vallagarina (basaltic).

Historical and human factors relevant to the link: Vines and wine have always been part of the area’s cultural heritage, as demonstrated by numerous archaeological finds and documented historical evidence over a period of time from the Bronze Age to the present day. For sev eral centuries, the whole area was also an integral part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and some of the empire’s administrative and cultural characteristics are still clearly preserved today. During the thousand years that vine cul tivation and human history have gone hand in hand, inextricable links between the two have developed, which are reflected not only in local culture and traditional farming and winemaking practices, but also in wider and more indirect cultural areas, such as art and gastronomy. The establishment of the San Michele all’Adige Agricultural Institute in 1874 made a decisive and indelible impact on wine-growing and production and the wine culture in general in the area, providing an extraordinary source of learning, knowledge and education in the sector. Indeed, modern wine-growing owes a l ot to the training and dissemination of new wine-growing and oenological tech niques carried out by this institute together with the Conegliano school. An essential contribution was also made by the wine-growers of the area, who introduced vineyard management processes and methodologies combining environmental and economic sustainability and innovative winemaking technologies.

Vigneti delle Dolomiti, Category: Wine Information on the special quality of products attributable to the geographical origin and casual link with the natural and human features of the geographical area.

The white wines of the different types demonstrate a range of colours ranging from straw yellow to golden yellow, sometimes with hints of pale green or copper as in the case of Pinot Grigio. The fine aromas of the wines are characterised by their subtlety, with fruity notes that generally reflect the main grape variety used in the wine, in particular in the case of aromatic or semi-aromatic varieties such as Muller Thurgau and Sauvignon. The taste of the wines, which ranges from dry to sweet, is harmonious, well-structured, fresh and flavourful.

The rosé wines, in particular those obtained from the Schiava, Merlot and Teroldego varieties, have a pink colour of varying intensity resulting from the winemaking process. The taste is fresh and harmonious and ranges from dry to sweet with balanced acidity.

The red wines have a ruby red colour of varying intensity, occasionally with hints of orange in the case of aged wines. Their aroma is vinous, sometimes ethereal or fruity; depending on the grape variety used to produce them, they may have fruity aromas of varying intensity and well-developed if the wine is aged. The taste is harmonious and well-structured and can range from dry to sweet.

The wide range of grape varieties grown allows the suitability of the various types of land to be best exploited. Vineyards are normally located in zones with the most favourable sun exposure. Mainly white grape varieties are grown in hilly areas, whereas red grape varieties grown in the deeper soils of the valley floor can produce full- bodied, tannic and flavourful wines with well-developed notes of ripe fruit. C 197/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

The variations in temperature between day and night that are typical of this area cause, particularly in white grapes, a considerable accumulation of the aromatic precursors which give the wines their particular organoleptic characteristics. The variety of land positions and altitudes thus provides a w ide range of different conditions, mak ing it possible to identify the most appropriate location for the differentwines.

The characteristics and qualities of ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ IGT wines are also due to human factors, in particular the professionalism of wine producers. The area of as holding’ land under vines is modest at around 1,3 hectares. The topography also means a high number of working hours (over 600) a re necessary to cultivate 1 hectare of vineyard. Most of this time is spent on operations aimed at optimising the growth of plants and the ripening of the grapes, stimulating natural resistance to pathogens and reducing the use of plant-health measures. In this regard, it should be noted that almost the entire area under vines is cultivated according to the principles of integrated, and increasingly organic, pest management. Grapes are picked exclusively by hand.

The interaction between natural factors (climate, soil conditions and the topography), the experience built up by local operators and modern growing and winemaking techniques makes it possible to produce quality wines whose characteristics and reputation are linked both to the production area and to the grape varieties from which they come.

Vigneti delle Dolomiti, Categories (4) Sparkling wine, (5) Quality sparkling wine, (6) Quality aromatic sparkling wine, (8) Semi-sparkling wine Information on the special quality of products attributable to the geographical origin and casual link with the natural and human features of the geographical area.

Boasting a centuries-o ld tradition, sparkling wine is considered the jewel in the crown of local winemaking. The particular care taken during the phase of growing and harvesting the grapes and making them into the base wine as well as during the subsequent secondary fermentation period makes the sparkling wine stand out for its particu lar qualities of subtlety and elegance.

The quality of the sparkling wines is characterised by the availability of raw materials originating from mountain ous wine-growing areas where the grapes and wines have quality characteristics that are ideal for producing this type of wine. These characteristics consist in particular in the fact that the grapes maintain a good balance between sugar content and acidity, aided by the temperature variation between day and night, which becomes gradually more marked as the altitude of the vineyards increases.

Furthermore, the characterisation of the product depends on the restricted range of vine varieties which may be used to produce sparkling wines.

As regards the ‘quality aromatic sparkling wine’ , the causal interaction is also due to the selection of the grape variety, i.e. the native ‘Moscato Giallo’ variety being grown in the area, the fine aromas of which are enhanced by an aging process which is not too intense, aided by the sub-alpine climate.

The sparkling wine is characterised by a lively and persistent foam and a colour which ranges from straw yellow to golden yellow with hints of pale green. It has a distinctive and fine aroma with a h int of yeast. The taste is fine, lively and typical of the grape variety.

The sparkling rosé wine, mainly obtained from the Pinot Nero grape variety, is characterised by a lively and persis tent foam and a pink colour of varying intensity. It has a distinctive and fine aroma with a hint of yeast. The taste is fine, lively and distinctive.

In terms of sugar content, the taste of the sparkling wine, whether white or rosé, ranges from dry to sweet, i.e. with the indication from ‘brut nature’ to ‘sweet’.

Semi-sparkling wines, whether white, rosé or red, are distinguished by their freshness and liveliness, which are linked to the moderate release of carbon dioxide.

Moreover, the level of specialisation that some holdings have achieved in the production of semi-sparkling wines has made it possible to refine winemaking techniques and technological aspects relating to secondary fermentation carried out in large containers (autoclaves), helping to raise the quality standard of semi-sparkling wines.

The specialisation of the production process has in fact made it possible to identify the variety types that are most suitable for processing into semi-sparkling wine and to carry out secondary fermentation using equipment at the forefront of technology; these factors have contributed to increasing the quality of the final product. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/17

The variety of environments in terms of soil and climate makes it possible to best exploit the potential of the varieties suitable for processing into sparkling wine. Vineyards are normally located in zones with the most favourable sun exposure. The variations in temperature between day and night that are typical of this area cause, particularly in white grapes, a considerable accumulation of the aromatic precursors which give the wines their particular organoleptic characteristics. The variety of land positions and altitudes thus provides a wide range of different conditions, making it possible to identify the most appropriate location for the different vine varieties.

The characteristics and qualities of ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ IGT wines are also due to human factors, in particular the professionalism of wine producers. The area of sa holding’ land under vines is modest at around 1,3 hectares. The topography also means a high number of working hours (over 600) a re necessary to cultivate 1 hectare of vineyard. Most of this time is spent on operations aimed at optimising the growth of plants and the ripening of the grapes, stimulating natural resistance to pathogens and reducing the use of plant-health measures. In this regard, it should be noted that almost the entire area under vines is cultivated according to the principles of integrated, and increasingly organic, pest management. Grapes are picked exclusively by hand.

The interaction between natural factors (grape variety, climate, soil), the experience built up by local operators and modern growing and winemaking techniques makes it possible to produce quality wines whose characteristics and reputation are linked both to the production area and to the grape varieties from which they come.

Vigneti delle Dolomiti, Categories 15 — Wine from raisined grapes and 16 — Wine of overripe grapes Information on the special quality of products attributable to the geographical origin and casual link with the natural and human features of the geographical area. The colour varies from golden yellow to amber for the white wines to pink and garnet red depending on the variety used. The aroma is delicate and distinctive with notes of raisined grapes, sometimes spicy and reminiscent of honey and ripe fruit. The taste is full, harmonious, of raisin wine and may range from dry to sweet, although types with higher sugar content are prevalent.

Although the production of ‘Passito’ wines concerns all varieties to some extent, both white and red grape varieties, the ones most frequently used are aromatic grape varieties (Moscato Giallo, Moscato Rosa, Traminer Aromatico) and semi-aromatic varieties (Goldtraminer, Nosiola, Riesling Renano, Sauvignon, etc.).

Drying takes place on the plant (wine of overripe grapes) or in drying areas (wine from raisined grapes). The length of the overripening or drying period is variable and depends on the intensity of the characteristics that the winemaker wishes to confer on the end product by mean of this technique.

The grapes used to produce ‘Passito’ wines are identified by the producer on the basis of specific physical and quality characteristics of the bunch.

Bunches with a loose-p acked structure, i.e. with plenty of space between the grapes, are particularly well suited to being dried and they are selected in the vineyard at the time of the harvest.

Drying is favoured by the marked variation in temperature between day and night, which is particularly notable during late summer and autumn, and by the north winds in the region that come in across the Alps.

Furthermore, the mitigating ‘ Òra del Garda’ wind blows every day from Lake Garda, sweeping across a large part of the production area and contributing significantly to creating the optimal conditions for drying the grapes, i.e. almost continuous natural ventilation with humidity levels such as to prevent the grapes from drying too quickly.

‘Passito’ wines, although they are produced in low volumes overall, are produced by almost all bottling companies, often representing an undertaking’s ‘flagship’ product.

The causal interaction between the geographical area and the characteristics of the product are mainly due to three factors:

— the availability of varieties (as specified above) the grapes of which are particularly suited to undergoing the drying process necessary to make this type of wine;

— temperature variations and periodic local breezes (‘ Òra del Garda’ ) which favour the preservation of the grapes during the phase of drying, whether on the plant or in drying areas;

— an ancient tradition of producing ‘Passito’ wines which is still carried out using techniques which have been passed down over the centuries. C 197/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

The variety of environments in terms of soil and climate makes it possible to best exploit the potential of the varieties the grapes of which are most suitable for undergoing the drying process. Vineyards are normally located in zones with the most favourable sun exposure. The variations in temperature between day and night that are typical of this area cause, particularly in white grapes, a considerable accumulation of the aromatic precursors which give the wines their particular organoleptic characteristics. The variety of land positions and altitudes thus provides a wide range of different conditions, making it possible to identify the most appropriate location for the different vine varieties.

9. Essential further conditions Derogations concerning the area of winemaking and processing into semi-sparkling and sparkling wine Legal framework: In EU legislation

Type of further condition: Derogation concerning production in the identified geographical area

Description of the condition:

According to the applicable EU legislation, winemaking and processing into semi-sparkling and sparkling wine may also be carried out throughout the neighbouring Veneto and Lombardy regions, provided that the holdings con cerned can demonstrate an uninterrupted tradition of making ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI wines over the last five wine-growing years.

The possibility of processing wine into sparkling and semi-sparkling wine in the neighbouring regions is justified by and consistent with the fact that normal winemaking processes may be carried out in these regions. These processes are not considered as post-vinification stages, but rather as an integral part of wine production, and as such can only be carried out within the identified wine production area.

This derogation is based on well-established tradition and it allows the producers concerned to also use processing plants located in the aforementioned administrative units bordering the production area.

Indication of the name of the grape variety on the label Legal framework: In EU legislation

Type of further condition: Additional labelling requirements

Description of the condition:

The labels of wines in the ‘Wine’ and ‘Semi-sparkling wine’ categories with the ‘Vigneti delle Dolomiti’ PGI may show the name of one or two grape varieties from which the wines are obtained.

However, in accordance with the applicable EU legislation, the use of the name of the grape variety or varieties in the labelling and presentation is prohibited in the following cases:

a) For the wine categories ‘ Wine from raisined grapes’ and ‘Wine of overripe grapes’, including those described as ‘Vino Passito’ or ‘Passito’;

b) For the categories ‘Wine’ and ‘Semi-sparkling wine’, limited to the following varieties: - for wines of the province of Bolzano: Lagrein, Riesling Italico, Riesling Renano, Traminer Aromatico, Veltliner; - For wines of the province of Trento: Lagrein, Marzemino, Meunier, Negrara, Riesling Italico, Riesling Renano, Traminer Aromatico, Treb biano Toscano, Veltliner. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/19

In addition, for the categories ‘Sparkling wine’ and ‘Quality sparkling wine’, reference may be made on the label to one or two varieties, limited to the following: Chardonnay, Pinot Bianco, Pinot Grigio, Pinot Nero and Müller Thur gau; and for the category ‘Quality aromatic sparkling wine’ only the name of the Moscato Giallo variety may be used on the label.

Link to the product specification https://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/12936 C 197/20 Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 July 2019 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1)) (2019/C 197/03) EN

Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basis points has to be added. The Commission Regula tion (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate. Modified rates are indicated in bold. Official Journal of the European Union of the Journal Official Previous table published in OJ C 158, 10.5.2019, p. 12.

From To AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK 1.7.2019 … -0,11 -0,11 0,00 -0,11 1,98 -0,11 0,00 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 0,28 0,48 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 1,87 -0,11 3,56 0,07 -0,11 -0,111,09 1.6.2019 30.6.2019 -0,11 -0,11 0,00 -0,11 1,98 -0,11 0,02 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 0,28 0,56 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 1,87 -0,11 3,56 0,05 -0,11 -0,111,09 1.5.2019 31.5.2019 -0,11 -0,11 0,00 -0,11 1,98 -0,11 0,03 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 0,28 0,56 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 -0,11 1,87 -0,11 3,56 0,02 -0,11 -0,111,09 1.4.2019 30.4.2019 -0,13 -0,13 0,00 -0,13 1,98 -0,13 0,04 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 0,28 0,56 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 1,87 -0,13 3,56 -0,03 -0,13 -0,131,09 1.3.2019 31.3.2019 -0,13 -0,13 0,00 -0,13 1,98 -0,13 0,03 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 0,28 0,56 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 -0,13 1,87 -0,13 3,56 -0,13 -0,13 -0,131,09 1.2.2019 28.2.2019 -0,16 -0,16 0,00 -0,16 1,98 -0,16 0,03 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 0,28 0,56 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 1,87 -0,16 3,56 -0,24 -0,16 -0,161,09 1.1.2019 31.1.2019 -0,16 -0,16 0,00 -0,16 1,98 -0,16 0,02 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 0,28 0,56 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 -0,16 1,87 -0,16 3,56 -0,31 -0,16 -0,161,09 13.6.2019 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/21

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

Notice of a t ender procedure for the granting of licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Dinaric area (2019/C 197/04)

The Government of the Republic of Croatia invites all interested persons to submit bids to obtain a l icence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in respect of the available exploration blocks in the Dinaric area.

The tender documentation and all information and notices relating to the procedure is published on the official websites of the Ministry of the Protection of the Environment and Energy – www.mzoe.hr and the Croatian Hydrocarbon Agency – www.azu.hr

1. BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING LICENCES Licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons are issued in respect of exploration blocks in the Dinaric area. Licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons grant investors the right to carry out exploration of hydrocarbons in a specific exploration block and to enter into contracts for the exploration and exploitation of hydro carbons, as well as the direct award of a hydrocarbon extraction licence, provided that they fulfil all the conditions laid down in the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act.

Licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons will be granted to successful bidders for a maximum period of thirty (30) years, which includes both the exploration period and the exploitation period, starting on the date that the contract enters into force.

As per the terms of the licence, investors will sign a c ontract with the Government of Croatia for the exploration of hydrocarbons and the sharing of exploitation benefits within six (6) months from the date of issue of the licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

2. INFORMATION REGARDING EXPLORATION BLOCKS The tender procedure for licences for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Dinaric area will be carried out in respect of four exploration blocks:

1. Exploration block Dinaridi-13 (DI-13)

2. Exploration block Dinaridi-14 (DI-14)

3. Exploration block Dinaridi-15 (DI-15)

4. Exploration block Dinaridi-16 (DI-16)

Maps and coordinates of the exploration blocks are provided in the tender documentation.

3. INDICATIVE DATE/DEADLINE FOR GRANTING LICENCES Bids must be submitted by 10 September 2019 and the indicative deadline for granting licences is December 2019.

4. CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF BIDDERS Under Article 2(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the condi tions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3) in relation to national security and in accordance with Article 19 of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act, the criteria to be taken into consideration in order to select the most advantageous bidder are:

1. the technical, financial and professional competence of the bidder;

2. how the bidder intends to carry out the activities covered by the licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons;

3. the overall quality of the bid submitted; C 197/22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

4. the financial conditions offered by the bidder in exchange for the licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons; and

5. any lack of efficiency or responsibility in any form displayed by the bidder in other countries and in previous activi ties covered by a licence for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

Another criterion for selecting the bidder is the fee for entering into the contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, the minimum amount of which is laid down in the decree referred to in Article 51 of the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act.

If, following an evaluation on the basis of the criteria under the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Exploitation Act, two or more bids are of equal merit, other relevant, objective and non-discriminatory criteria will be taken into account for the final decision. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/23

Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) Establishment of a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) (Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19)) (2019/C 197/05)

I.1) Name, address and contact point

Registered name: EVTZ Euregio Maas-Rhein

Registered office: Gospertstraße 42, 4700 Eupen, Belgium

Contact point: Michael Dejozé, +32 87789630, [email protected]

Internet address of the Grouping: www.euregio-mr.eu

I.2) Duration of the Grouping

Duration of the Grouping: Unlimited

Date of registration: 15.3.2019

Date of publication: 19.3.2019

II. OBJECTIVES (1) The core remit of EGTC Euregio Maas-Rhein is to facilitate and intensify cooperation between the partner regions in order to promote balanced and sustainable development in the region and make daily life for all inhabitants easier regardless of their circumstances.

EGTC Euregio Maas-Rhein aims to be a platform for pooling competences, i.e. to be a facilitator for the development of territorial cohesion, without however claiming to replace the existing competent authorities.

(2) EGTC Euregio Maas-Rhein can develop activities, draw up and implement programmes and projects and apply for funding.

III. ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON NAME OF THE GROUPING Name in English: EGTC Euregio Maas-Rhein

Name in French: GECT Euregio Maas-Rhein

IV. MEMBERS IV.1) Total number of members in the Grouping: 5

IV.2) Nationalities of the members of the Grouping: Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

IV.3) Member information (1) Official name: Province of Limburg

Postal address: Universiteitslaan 1, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium

Internet address: http://www.limburg.be/

Type of member: Regional authority

(1) Please add for each member. C 197/24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

Official name: Province of Liège

Postal address: Palais Provincial, 18a Place Saint-Lambert, 4000 Liège, Belgium

Internet address: https://www.provincedeliege.be/

Type of member: Regional authority

Official name: German-speaking Community of Belgium

Postal address: Klötzerbahn 32 32, 4700 Eupen, Belgium

Internet address: http://www.ostbelgienlive.be

Type of member: Regional authority

Official name: Region Aachen-Zweckverband

Postal address: Dennenwartstraße 25-27, 52068 Aachen, Germany

Internet address: www.regionaachen.de

Type of member: Regional authority

Official name: Province of Limburg

Postal address: Limburglaan 10, 6229 GA Maastricht, Netherlands

Internet address: https://www.limburg.nl/

Type of member: Regional authority 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/25

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and at Cour of Justice on state aid issues (2019/C 197/06)

By means of the above referenced Decision, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the EFTA Surveillance Authority notified the Norwegian authorities of its decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice concerning the abovementioned measure.

Interested parties may submit comments on the measure in question within one month of the date of publication to:

EFTA Surveillance Authority Registry Rue Belliard 35 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The comments will be communicated to the Norwegian authorities. The identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be withheld following a request in writing stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY Procedure 1. The Authority received a complaint from the trade organisation ‘Nelfo’ on 11 May 2017.

2. Following requests, the Authority received information from the Norwegian authorities by letters dated 27 June 2017 and 5 July 2017, and by emails dated 8 September 2017, 12 September 2017 and 28 February 2018.

Description of the measure(s) 3. The alleged aid beneficiary is BKK acting through different fully owned subsidiaries.

4. In 1996, the ownership of the streetlights in Bergen was transferred from a company fully owned by the Municipality of Bergen, to BKK. Two years later, BKK was converted into a limited liability company. Currently, BKK is owned by the Municipality of Bergen (37,75 %), other municipalities in the Bergen region (12,35 %), and the state-owned enterprise Statkraft Industrial Holding AS (49,9 %).

5. The BKK subsidiaries that have owned the streetlights over the years are BKK Nett AS (1996-January 2016), EnoTek AS (January 2016-May 2017) and Veilys AS (May 2017-present).

6. The Decision concerns three measures implemented by the Municipality of Bergen in relation to the streetlights in the municipality namely (a) the operation and maintenance agreement, (b) t he financing of 12 000 LED fixtures, and (c) the compensation for the capital costs of the streetlight infrastructure.

7. According to the complainant, measure (a) and (b) entail an on-going breach of the state aid rules dating back to 1 January 2016. For these two measures, the formal investigation procedure is restricted to this time period. C 197/26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

Assessment of the measure(s) 8. The Authority doubts that the three measures are in line with the market economy operator principle (‘MEOP’). The financing of the 12 000 LED fixtures and the compensation of the capital costs of the streetlight infrastructure might entail a mitigation of charges that should normally be borne by the budget of BKK, as the owner of the streetlights. The Norwegian authorities have not submitted information suggesting that BKK has a public service obligation to discharge, and the rules concerning services of general economic interest therefore do not seem applicable to the measures at hand.

9. Even if the Municipality of Bergen is purchasing the operation and maintenance services for the benefit of its population, the Authority doubts that the activity of BKK, a private entity offering services for remuneration, can be characterised as non-economic.

10. Finally, it would appear that the market for operation and maintenance, as well as the other markets in which the relevant BKK subsidiaries have been involved, are open to intra-EEA trade. At present however, the Authority lacks sufficiently detailed information to conclude in this regard.

11. If the measures constitute state aid, the obligation, contained in Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, to notify the aid to the Authority before putting it into effect has not been respected. Such state aid would be unlawful.

12. The Norwegian authorities have not provided arguments substantiating that the measures, to the extent that they constitute state aid, could be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The Authority therefore has doubts as to the compatibility of all three measures.

Decision No 27/19/COL of 16 April 2019 to open a formal investigation into potential state aid granted in relation to the streetlights in Bergen (Case 83223)

1 Summary (1) The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) wishes to inform the Norwegian authorities that it has concerns that the measures covered by the complaint, and one additional measure, related to streetlight infrastructure in Bergen, might entail state aid, pursuant to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, and has doubts as to the compatibility of the measures with the EEA Agreement. Therefore, the Authority is required to open a formal investigation procedure (1).

(2) The Authority has based its decision on the following considerations.

2 Procedure (3) By letter dated 11 May 2017 (2), Nelfo, a trade organisation for electro, IT, e-com, system integrators and lift companies in Norway, submitted a complaint, alleging that the Municipality of Bergen has been granting unlawful state aid to BKK acting through different wholly owned subsidiaries, by way of different measures in relation to the streetlight infrastructure in Bergen.

(4) By letter dated 1 June 2017 (3), the Authority forwarded the complaint to the Norwegian authorities, and invited them to comment on it. By letters dated 27 June 2017 and 5 July 2017 (4), the Norwegian authorities responded.

(5) By email of 7 September 2017, the Authority invited the Norwegian authorities to provide further information (5). The Norwegian authorities responded by two emails dated 8 September 2017 (6) and 12 September 2017 (7).

(1) Reference is made to Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice. (2) Document No 855990. (3) Document No 858239. (4) Documents Nos 863097, 863099, 864432, and 864434. (5) Document No 872926. (6) Ibid. (7) Document No 873252. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/27

(6) On 11 July 2018, the Authority asked for further information (8). On 17 August 2018, a videoconference between the Authority and the Norwegian authorities was held (9).

(7) By email dated 28 February 2019, the Norwegian authorities submitted further information (10).

3 Description of the measures 3.1 Background (8) Norwegian municipalities are legally responsible for financing the operation and maintenance of streetlights along municipal roads in their respective jurisdictions (11).

(9) Until 1996, the streetlights infrastructure along municipal roads in Bergen was owned by Bergen Lysverker. Bergen Lysverker was wholly owned by the Municipality of Bergen.

(10) In 1996, Bergen Lysverker was acquired by and incorporated into BKK. At the time, BKK was wholly owned by several municipalities in the Bergen region, and the Municipality of Bergen had a majority share, owning approxi mately 70 %. During that process, the streetlight infrastructure was considered to be part of the distribution power grid, and it was integrated into BKK Nett AS, a wholly owned subsidiary of BKK. With this, BKK Nett AS became the owner of the streetlight infrastructure. Simultaneously, a contract was negotiated between the Munici pality of Bergen and BKK Nett AS, regulating the maintenance and operation of the streetlights (‘the maintenance and operation agreement’). The contract included an element of exclusivity. BKK Nett AS would not sell streetlight services to others, and the Municipality of Bergen would only purchase streetlight services from BKK Nett AS.

(11) In 1998, BKK was converted into a limited liability company. Currently, it is owned by the Municipality of Bergen (37,75 %), other municipalities in the Bergen region (12,35 %), and the state-owned enterprise Statkraft Industrial Holding AS (49,9 %).

(12) On 1 January 2016, the ownership of the streetlights together with the operation and maintenance agreement was transferred to EnoTek AS, a wholly owned subsidiary of BKK Nett AS.

(13) The most recent information available to the Authority on the ownership of the streetlights in the area of Bergen is from 18 May 2016 (12) , and is as follows:

— 16 058 streetlights on municipal roads are owned by EnoTek AS.

— 2 349 streetlights on municipal roads are owned by the Municipality of Bergen.

— 8 989 streetlights on private roads are owned by EnoTek AS.

(14) On 27 September 2016, the Municipality of Bergen published a call for tender for the purchase of approximately 12 000 LED fittings. The LED fittings would be used to replace quicksilver fittings and sodium fittings on the streetlight infrastructure owned by EnoTek AS. The replacement was financed by the Municipality of Bergen, which owns the new LED fittings (13).

(15) In May 2017, with the objective of defining the interface between streetlight activities and other activities, the ownership of the streetlights together with the provision of the streetlight services was transferred to another wholly owned subsidiary of BKK, Veilys AS.

(16) On 28 February 2019, the Norwegian authorities submitted information that brought an additional measure to the Authority’s attention. According to this new information, the Municipality of Bergen also compensates BKK for the capital costs of the streetlights. The compensation covers renewal and upgrade of streetlights, luminaires, wires, ignition systems, etc. The Municipality of Bergen pays NOK […] per light point per year. The Authority has no further information concerning this measure, and it is, strictly speaking, not covered by the complaint.

(17) On this background, the Authority will assess the following measures implemented by the Municipality of Bergen in relation to the streetlight infrastructure in Bergen.

(a) The operation and maintenance agreement with BKK.

(8) Document No 923689. (9) Document No 827789. (10) Document No 1057006. (11) Lov om vegar (Road Act), LOV-1963-06-21-23, Section 20. (12) See letter from the Municipality of Bergen to Nettpartner AS dated 18 May 2016 attached as annex 2 to the complaint. (13) See contract notice published on TED website attached as annex 7 to the complaint. C 197/28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

(b) The financing of 12 000 LED fixtures on the infrastructure owned by BKK.

(18) According to the complainant, the measures complained about entail an on-going breach of the state aid rules, dating back to 1 January 2016. For measures (a) and (b), the Authority will therefore restrict its assessment to this time period.

3.2 The complaint (19) The complainant essentially argues that the Municipality of Bergen has granted an advantage to BKK by: (a) overcompensating it for the maintenance and operation of the 18 407 streetlights along municipal roads (14), for which the Municipality is responsible; and (b) financing the 12 000 new LED fixtures on the streetlight infras tructure owned by BKK.

(20) The complainant argues in particular that BKK engages in economic activity as there are several suppliers that are willing and able to operate and maintain the streetlights.

(21) In the event that the maintenance and operation of the streetlights is considered a service of general economic interest (SGEI), the complainant argues first that the presence of state aid cannot be excluded on the basis of the four Altmark criteria (15). Second, the amounts involved exceed the SGEI de minimis (16) ceiling of EUR 500 000. Third, the measure fails to meet the requirements in the SGEI Decision (17).

(22) The complainant estimates the overcompensation for the service of maintenance and operation of the streetlights at approximately NOK 12 million (around EUR 1,25 million) per year.

3.3 Comments by the Norwegian authorities (23) The Norwegian authorities argue that BKK is not acting as an undertaking when providing operation and mainte nance services to the Municipality of Bergen. Hence, any advantage granted to it, falls outside the remit of state aid law. More specifically, the Norwegian authorities argue that no market can exist without private demand and private willingness to pay for the goods or services in question, i.e. where public authorities are the only purchasers (18).

(24) The Norwegian authorities argue that the streetlight network is characterised by at least two types of market failure. First, the provision of streetlights along municipal roads is a public good hampered by a free rider prob lem, which entails that a private party cannot provide it for profit. Second, streetlight networks are natural monopolies in that allowing for competition would entail a wasteful duplication of resources.

(25) Neither national nor EEA law requires BKK to allow for third party access to the streetlight infrastructure it owns. BKK has consistently refused to grant access not only to its own infrastructure, but also to the 2 349 streetlights owned by the Municipality of Bergen. By doing so, it has precluded the Municipality of Bergen from operating the streetlights in-house or purchasing the services from other companies. It is the view of the Norwegian author ities that the situation at hand does not allow for price regulation, state aid or competition law control with the view of preventing overcompensation for the operation and maintenance of streetlights.

4 Presence of state aid 4.1 Introduction (26) Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement stipulates that:

‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’

(14) 16 058 of these are owned by EnoTek AS and the rest, 2 349 are owned by the Municipality of Bergen. (15) Judgment in Altmark, C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415 (‘Altmark’), paragraphs 89–93. (16) Commission Regulation (EU) No 360/2012 of 25 April 2012 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Func tioning of the European Union to de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest, OJ L 114, 26.4.2012, p. 8, referred to at point 1ha of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement. (17) Commission Decision 2012/21/EU of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the oper ation of services of general economic interest, OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, referred to at point 1h of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement. (18) The Norwegian authorities refer to judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2006x, Sele v Commission, T-155/04, EU:T:2006:387, paragraph 61 (‘judgment of the GC in Selex’). The reasoning in the judgment of the General Court was overturned by the Court of Justice which considered the activity to be non-economic on other grounds. See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 March 2009, Selex v Commission, C-113/07, EU:C:2009:191 (‘judgment of the CoJ in Selex’), paragraphs 86–93, which considered the activity non-economic on other grounds. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/29

(27) The qualification of a measure as aid within the meaning of this provision therefore requires the following cumu lative conditions to be met: the measure must (i) be granted by the State or through State resources; (ii) confer an advantage on an undertaking; (iii) favour certain undertakings (selectivity); and (iv) be liable to distort competition and affect trade.

4.2 Presence of State resources (28) For the measure to constitute aid, it must be granted by the State or through State resources. State resources include all resources of the public sector, including resources of intra-State entities (decentralised, federated, regional or other), see the Authority’s Guidelines on the notion of state aid (‘NoA’) (19).

(29) The remuneration for the services on the streetlight infrastructure, as well as the financing of the new LED fix tures, and the compensation for the capital costs, all come from the budget of the Municipality of Bergen. It therefore constitutes State resources.

4.3 Advantage 4.3.1 Introduction (30) The qualification of a measure as state aid requires that it confers an advantage to the recipient. An advantage, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, is any economic benefit that an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions.

(31) The measure confers an advantage not only if it confers positive economic benefits, but also in situations where it mitigates charges normally borne by the budget of the undertaking. This covers all situations in which economic operators are relieved of the inherent costs of their economic activities (20).

(32) Economic transactions carried out by public bodies are considered not to confer an advantage on the counterpart of the agreement, and therefore not to constitute aid, if they are carried out in line with normal market condi tions. This is assessed pursuant to the market economy operator principle (‘MEOP’). When public authorities pur chase a service, it is generally sufficient, to exclude the presence of an advantage, that they pay market price.

(33) As regards costs incurred by undertakings entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest, compensation for the service will not be considered as granting an advantage to the undertaking in question if the four cumulative Altmark conditions are fulfilled (21). The Norwegian authorities have, however, not provided any information indicating that BKK has a public service obligation to discharge. The Authority is therefore, at this stage, not able to exclude that BKK has obtained an advantage on this basis.

(34) The complainant calls upon the Authority to consider whether the Municipality of Bergen has granted an advan tage to BKK by: (a) overcompensating it for the maintenance and operation of the 18 407 streetlights along municipal roads, for which the Municipality of Bergen is responsible; and (b) financing the 12 000 LED fixtures. On 28 February 2019, the Norwegian authorities brought an additional measure to the Authority’s attention, namely (c) the compensation paid to BKK for the capital costs of the streetlights.

4.3.2 The operation and maintenance of streetlights in the Bergen area (35) In relation to the presence of an advantage, the Norwegian authorities have mainly pointed to the fact that BKK, as the owner of the streetlight infrastructure, has refused to give access to the Municipality of Bergen and other third party operators. This has prevented the public authorities from providing the services themselves or pur chasing them from a different provider than BKK. The Municipality has therefore not had the option of acquiring the service by way of an open tender (22).

(36) The purchase of the services through a competitive, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional tender is only one of several methods for ensuring that a transaction does not confer an advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Municipality of Bergen could have ensured that the transactions were carried out in line with normal market conditions by benchmarking (23) or through a qualified financial assessment (24).

(19) OJ L 342, 21.12.2017, p. 35 and EEA Supplement No 82, 21.12.2017, p. 1, paragraph 48. (20) NoA, paragraph 68. (21) Altmark, paragraphs 89–93. (22) Email from the Norwegian authorities to the Authority of 8 September 2017, Document No 873252. (23) NoA, paragraphs 98–100. (24) NoA, paragraphs 101–105. C 197/30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

(37) Despite repeated requests (25), the Norwegian authorities have not provided evidence showing that the decisions to carry out the transactions under assessment were taken on the basis of economic evaluations, comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator (with characteristics similar to those of the public body concerned) would have carried out, to determine the profitability or economic advantages of the transactions (26). (38) The Municipality of Bergen is paying NOK […] per lamp point per year for maintenance and operation (27). The available information does not provide any documentation on the question how the remuneration has been determined. (39) The complainant argues that comparable services have been delivered for around NOK […] per lamp point per year in other regions. The complainant has not documented this allegation. (40) The Norwegian authorities argue that the services delivered under the contracts referred to by the complainant might not be comparable to the services delivered by BKK to the Municipality of Bergen. BKK has entered into contracts similar to the contracts covered by the complaint (contracts for operation, maintenance and call-out and emergency services (‘OM&E contracts’)) with other municipalities in the Bergen region for an average price of NOK […] per light point per year. They explain that price variations between individual contracts can be due to differentiated services on the contractual response times for light repairs, monitoring consumption for metered installations, and the extent to which critical zones, such as hospitals, are covered by the contract (28). (41) The Norwegian authorities have not provided any information concerning the OM&E contracts that BKK has entered into with other municipalities. The price in the contract under assessment in the case at hand (NOK […]) is in any event higher than the average price for what the Norwegian authorities argue are similar contracts (NOK […]). Even if the explanation provided by the Norwegian authorities could suggest that certain price variations might naturally occur under normal market conditions, the Norwegian authorities have, in any event, not sub stantiated that the price paid by the Municipality of Bergen was in line with the price charged for similar obliga tions in comparable contracts. (42) The Norwegian authorities have explained that they are in a deadlock situation in that they have no choice but to purchase the services from BKK. They seem to acknowledge in this respect that owners of this type of infrastruc ture can exploit their position, potentially to raise prices (29), and indicate that they have not found any suitable methods for finding and agreeing with BKK on ‘ the right price’ (30). (43) In light of the above, and in particular in light of the absence of any evidence supporting that the prices under the contracts have been set in line with normal market conditions, the Authority has formed the preliminary view that BKK might have received an advantage under the maintenance and operation agreement, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. 4.3.3 Financing of the 12 000 LED fixtures (44) Next, the Authority must consider whether the financing by the Municipality of Bergen of 12 000 LED fixtures on the infrastructure owned by BKK entailed a mitigation of charges that normally should have been borne by the budget of BKK. (45) In a letter from the Municipality of Bergen to Nettpartner AS dated 8 November 2016, the Municipality explained that the reason for changing the LED fixtures is partly environmental considerations, partly the desire to reduce electricity costs, which the Municipality covers on top of the price for the maintenance and operation of the streetlight infrastructure (31). The Norwegian authorities have not commented on the state aid nature of this measure. (46) The objective of the measure, i.e. environmental protection, does not exclude it from the scope of state aid law (32). (47) For the purpose of the MEOP test, only benefits and obligations linked to the role of the state as an economic operator – to the exclusion of those linked to its role as a public authority – are to be taken into account (33). Therefore, the relevant question is whether the Municipality of Bergen acted as a market economy operator when taking the decision to finance the LED fixtures on the infrastructure owned by BKK. In that regard, the municipal ity’s obligation to pay for electricity, and the corresponding savings ensured by the investment are undoubtedly relevant when assessing whether the transaction is in line with normal market conditions.

(25) Emails of 7 September 2017 and 11 July 2018 (Documents Nos 872926 and 923689). (26) NoA, paragraph 79. (27) Email of 28 February 2019 and the attached maintenance and operation agreement, Document No 1057006. (28) Document No 863099. (29) Document No 864434. (30) Document No 873252. (31) Annex 6 to the complaint. (32) NoA, paragraph 69. (33) NoA, paragraph 77. Judgment in FIH v Commission, C-579/16, EU:C:2018:159, paragraph 55. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/31

(48) However, the Authority lacks the necessary information to assess whether a private operator, in a situation as close as possible to that of the Municipality of Bergen, only taking into account the benefits and obligations linked to its situation as a private operator, would have been prompted to take the decision to finance the new LED fixtures. The Authority asks that the Norwegian authorities provide it with all the relevant information to enable it to determine whether the transaction complies with the MEOP test (34).

(49) Based on the available information, the Authority cannot exclude that the financing of the 12 000 LED fixtures has conferred an advantage on BKK.

4.3.4 Compensation for the capital costs of the streetlights (50) Based on the available information, the compensation for the capital costs of the streetlights appears to be a mitigation of charges that should normally be borne by the budget of BKK as the owner of the streetlights. The Authority has no information suggesting that it is normal market practice for a private purchaser of maintenance and operation services to compensate the company providing such services and owning the streetlights for its capital costs. To the extent that this would be common practice, the Authority has no information allowing it to assess whether NOK […] per lamp point per year is market price for such service.

(51) Therefore, the Authority cannot exclude that the compensation for the capital costs of the streetlights has con ferred an advantage on BKK.

4.4 The notion of undertaking (52) Only advantages granted to ‘undertakings’ are subject to state aid law. The concept of an undertaking covers any entity that engages in an economic activity regardless of its status and the way it is financed. Hence, the public or private status of an entity, or the fact a company is partly or wholly publicly owned has no bearing on whether or not the entity is an ‘undertaking’ (35).

(53) An activity is economic in nature where it consists in offering goods and services on a market (36). In order to determine whether an entity is an ‘undertaking’, it is necessary for the Authority to carry out an individual exami nation of all its different activities.

(54) A single entity may carry out a number of activities, both economic and non-economic. An entity that engages in both kinds of activities should keep separate accounts to exclude cross-subsidies (37).

(55) The Municipality of Bergen is legally responsible for the streetlights along municipal roads in Bergen. All three measures appear to be in support of BKK’s activity related to the operation and maintenance of the streetlight infrastructure. The main question in relation to all three measures is therefore whether BKK is engaging in eco nomic activity when selling operation and maintenance services to the Municipality of Bergen.

(56) The Norwegian authorities argue that the activities of BKK in providing maintenance and operation services on those streetlights are non-economic in nature. The Norwegian authorities state that no market can exist without a private demand and a private willingness to pay for the good or service in question. This is the case for street lights along the municipal roads. The Norwegian authorities refer to the judgment of the General Court in Selex v Commission (38).

(57) That case concerned the activities of Eurocontrol, an international organisation established by various European States with the aim of strengthening cooperation in the field of air navigation and developing joint activities for better harmonisation and integration of practices. One of the questions considered was whether Eurocontrol offered services on a market when it prepared technical standards which were to be adopted by the Council of Eurocontrol, an act that would make them binding on all contracting States.

(58) The General Court found that the activity of producing the technical standards was non-economic in nature, observing in paragraph 61 of its judgment that ‘the only purchasers of such services can be States in their capac ity as air traffic control authorities’. In the view of the Authority, that statement cannot be read in isolation.

(59) Private unwillingness to pay for a service only suggests the presence of a market failure. The services under assessment in Selex v Commission on the other hand, concerned not simply a service the provision of which is hampered by a market failure in that there is no willingness to pay for the good in question, but rather a service of which the States were the only possible purchasers due to their prerogative in adopting technical standards for air navigation.

(34) Judgment in Commission v EDF, C-124/10, EU:C:2012:318, paragraph 104. (35) Judgment in Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe, C-74/16, EU:C:2017:496, paragraph 42. (36) NoA, chapter 2.1. (37) Judgment in Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe, C-74/16, EU:C:2017:496, paragraph 51. (38) Judgment of the GC in Selex, paragraph 61. C 197/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

(60) Even for a service of this nature, the General Court also looked at the way the States had chosen to organise it, so as to assess whether it was economic in nature. It observed that the States had chosen not to introduce market mechanisms, but rather to produce those standards themselves through an international organisation, which ren dered the conclusion that the service was non-economic. The Authority therefore disagrees that the judgment can be interpreted to mean that presence of private demand for a good or service is necessary for a market to exist. In principle, fierce competition on a market can exist even in markets where public authorities are the only or the main purchaser of the service in question. This is for example the case in the market for the construction of roads.

(61) The Authority also notes that the reasoning of the General Court was overturned by the Court of Justice which found that the activity was non-economic on the basis of the public powers exemption (39). The Court of Justice pointed to the fact that, taken as whole, an international organisation such as Eurocontrol exercised activities which, by their nature, their aim and the rules to which they are subject, are connected with the exercise of powers relating to the control and supervision of air space, and are therefore not economic in nature. The Nor wegian authorities have not argued that the public powers exemption applies to the activities of BKK.

(62) In the present case, the Norwegian authorities are purchasing services from a private entity, which is offering that service for remuneration. There is a market for the maintenance and operation of streetlights, and such services are sold to public authorities, as well as to companies and individuals that need lighting along private roads. The complainant represents companies selling services in this market.

(63) The fact that there would be no private demand for some of these services, due to a market failure, and the decision by a public authority to purchase those services in the interest of the public good, does not lead to the conclusion that the activity of the supplier is non-economic. If this were sufficient to exclude the measure from the realm of state aid law, the existence of the rules governing services of general economic interest for example, would be superfluous. In accordance with established case law, the presence of a market failure and the fact that a public authority reacts by imposing a public service obligation on an entity, does not preclude that the supplier of the service is pursuing an economic activity (40).

(64) The question in the present case is different from the one considered by the Court of Justice in FENIN (41). That case concerned the question whether Spanish hospitals abused their dominant position when purchasing medical goods and equipment on the market. The Court of Justice ruled only on the fact that an organisation which purchases goods not for the purpose of offering goods and services as part of an economic activity, but in order to use them in the context of a different activity, such as one of a purely social nature, does not act as an under taking, simply because it is a purchaser in a given market (42). However, FENIN did not raise the separate legal question whether the activities of the supplier of the medical goods and equipment are economic in nature. In principle, even if the public authority purchasing the service in question is carrying out a non-economic activity, for example because it is fulfilling its responsibilities to provide for lighting along municipal roads, the companies supplying the authorities with the delivery of LED lights and maintenance and operation services, might well be exercising economic activities.

(65) On that background, the Authority takes the preliminary view that BKK is engaging in an economic activity when selling maintenance and operation services for the streetlights to the Municipality of Bergen. As all three measures are linked to this activity, the Authority preliminary concludes that the three measures confer an advantage to an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

4.5 Selectivity (66) To be characterised as state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the measure must also be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. Not all measures which favour economic operators fall under the notion of aid, but only those which grant an advantage in a selective way to certain undertakings, categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.

(67) Any advantage stemming from the maintenance and operation agreement, the financing of the new 12 000 LED fixtures and the compensation for the capital costs of the streetlights, favours one particular undertaking, namely BKK. Hence, the measures are selective in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

4.6 Effect on trade and distortion of competition (68) In order to constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the measures must be liable to distort competition and affect trade between EEA States.

(39) Judgment of the CoJ in Selex, paragraphs 86–93. See NoA, paragraphs 17–18 on the public powers exemption. (40) Altmark; judgment of the CoJ in Selex, paragraph 119. (41) Judgment in FENIN v Commission, C-205/03, EU:C:2006:453. (42) Ibid, paragraph 37. 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/33

(69) A measures granted by the State are considered liable to distort competition when they are liable to improve the competitive position of the recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes. A distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is generally found to exist when the State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition (43).

(70) Public support is liable to distort competition even if it does not help the recipient undertaking to expand or gain market share. It is enough that the aid allows it to maintain a stronger competitive position than it would have had if the aid had not been provided (44).

(71) The Norwegian authorities argue that streetlight networks are ‘natural monopolies’ in the sense that allowing for competition would entail a wasteful duplication of resources. The fact that the infrastructure itself is a natural monopoly, does not, however, exclude that the operation of the infrastructure can distort competition. To exclude potential distortion of competition, the management and operation of the infrastructure must generally be subject to a legal monopoly and fulfil a number of other cumulative criteria (45). In the Authority’s preliminary assess ment, the measures do not seem to fulfil the necessary conditions.

(72) To the extent that the transactions between the Municipality of Bergen and BKK have not been carried out in line with normal market conditions, they have conferred an advantage on BKK, which may have strengthened its posi tion compared to other undertakings competing with it. The measures are therefore liable to distort competition.

(73) The final question is whether the measures are liable to affect trade between EEA States. Where state aid strength ens the position of an undertaking as compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by the aid (46).

(74) The Authority lacks more detailed information about the market for operation and maintenance of streetlights and the presence of cross-border investment in this sector. The complainant has, however, submitted that there are EEA suppliers of operation and maintenance services with whom BKK competes. Moreover, EnoTek AS appears to have been involved in several other markets providing for example entrepreneur services, project lead ership, operation and maintenance services, as well as security and preparedness (47). The Authority’s preliminary analysis is that the measures might have benefited also these activities and the Authority is not aware of anything to suggest that these markets are not open to intra-EEA trade.

(75) On this basis, the Authority cannot exclude that the measures are liable to distort competition and have an effect on intra-EEA trade.

4.7 Conclusion (76) Based on the available information provided by the Norwegian authorities and the complainant, the Authority has formed the preliminary view that the measures fulfil all criteria in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, and therefore constitute state aid.

5 Procedural requirements (77) Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘Protocol 3’): ‘The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […] The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision.’

(78) The Norwegian authorities did not notify the potential aid before putting it into effect. The Authority therefore concludes that, if the measures constitute state aid, the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.

6 Compatibility of the aid measures (79) Having preliminary concluded that the measures might constitute unlawful aid, the Authority must assess whether they would be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(80) The Norwegian authorities have not provided any arguments substantiating why the measures should be consid ered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In particular, no arguments supporting the conclu sion that the aid is targeted at a well-defined objective of common interest have been presented. Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have not presented evidence suggesting that BKK has been entrusted with a public service obligation. The Authority has also not identified any clear grounds for compatibility.

(43) NoA, paragraph 187. (44) NoA, paragraph 189. (45) NoA, paragraph 188. (46) Judgment in Eventech, C-518/13, EU:C:2015:9, paragraph 66. (47) https://www.bkk.no/enotek. C 197/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

(81) To the extent that the measures constitute state aid, the Authority therefore has doubts as to their compatibility with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

7 Conclusion (82) As set out above, the Authority has formed the preliminary view that the measures fulfil all criteria in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, and therefore constitute state aid. The Authority furthermore has doubts as to whether the measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(83) Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority hereby opens the formal investigation procedure. The decision to open a f ormal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures do not constitute state aid, or that they are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(84) The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to submit, by Monday 20y Ma 2019 , their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the measures in light of the state aid rules.

(85) The Authority informs the Norwegian authorities that it will forward a copy of this decision to BKK and inform interested parties by publishing a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication. The comments will be communicated to the Norwegian authorities.

Done in Brussels, 16 April 2019.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Bente ANGELL-HANSEN Frank J. BÜCHEL President College Member Responsible College Member

Högni KRISTJÁNSSON Carsten ZATSCHLER College Member Countersigning as Director Legal and Executive Affairs 13.6.2019 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/35

V (Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA COURT

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 24 January 2019 in the case of D and E (Case E-2/19) (2019/C 197/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 24y Januar 2019 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 January 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of D and E, on the following question: Must Directive 2004 /38, in particular Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(d) thereof, and the first sentence of Point III of [EEA Joint Committee] Decision No 191/1999 be interpreted as meaning that a family member of a national of an EU Member State has the right to obtain a permit of the same validity as that of the person on whom he depends even if the person on whom he depends obtained the right of residence in Liechtenstein only on the basis of national law and not on the basis of EEA law? C 197/36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.6.2019

Action brought on 26 February 2019 by Nettbuss AS against Konkurrenten.no AS (Case E-1/17 Costs) (2019/C 197/08)

An action against Konkurrenten.no AS was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 February 2019 by Nettbuss AS, represented by Camilla Borna Fossem of Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Ruseløkkveien 14, NO-0201 Oslo, Norway. The applicant asks that the Court make the following order: 1. Konkurrenten.no will pay to Nettbuss AS the amount of NOK 442 125 (or equivalent in euro) in addition to the relevant default interest rates. Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support: — Konkurrenten.no AS brought an action against Decision No 179/15/COL of May 2015, by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, before the EFTA Court on y11 Januar 2017. The applicant was directly affected by ESA’s decision and applied for leave to intervene in the Case, E-1/17 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority. The applicant was granted leave to intervene by Order of the President on 12 July 2017. — Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states. ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’ — In the Order of the Court in Case E-1/17, the EFTA Court ordered Konkurrenten.no AS to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition) ISSN 1725-2423 (paper edition)