THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and in particular Article 52(3), point (b), thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In accordance with Article 90(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2024\/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which repealed Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, the latter remains applicable to applications for registration of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs received by the Commission and published in the Official Journal of the European Union before 13 May 2024.
(2) On 5 April 2023 the Commission received an application from T\u00fcrkiye (\u2018the applicant\u2019) to register the name \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 as Protected Geographical Indication (PGI).
(3) Pursuant to Article 50(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, the Commission has examined the application from T\u00fcrkiye to register the name \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 as PGI.
(4) On 9 February 2024 the Commission published the application to register the name \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 as PGI in the Official Journal of the European Union as required by Article 50(2), point (a), of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012.
(5) On 16 April 2024 the Commission received a reasoned statement of opposition from Bulgaria (\u2018the opponent\u2019). After examining the reasoned statement of opposition and finding it admissible, in accordance with Article 51(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, the Commission invited T\u00fcrkiye and Bulgaria, by letter of 11 June 2024, to engage in appropriate consultations with a view to reaching an agreement. On 30 August 2024, at the request of T\u00fcrkiye, the Commission extended the deadline for consultations by an additional three months.
(6) On 11 January 2025, at the end of the consultations between T\u00fcrkiye and Bulgaria, the applicant notified the Commission of the result of the consultations, indicating that an agreement with the opponent was not reached. The applicant included all the information exchanged and explained its position indicating that the names \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0441\u0435\u0440 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 \/ \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0437\u0435\u0440 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 and \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0441\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 \/ \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0437\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 (\u2018Kaiser pastarma\u2019 \/ \u2018Kaizer pastarma\u2019 and \u2018Kaiserovana pastarma\u2019\/ \u2018Kaizerovana pastarma\u2019) can continue to be used without there being an infringement of the protection of the registered name. On 26 August 2025 the opponent notified the Commission that it considers that the two names can coexist.
(7) In the absence of an agreement the Commission is to adopt an implementing act deciding on the registration in accordance with Article 52(3), point (b), of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, considering the results of these consultations.
(8) \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 is a beef pastrami that is produced in the Kayseri province in T\u00fcrkiye. The link between \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 and the geographical area is based on the reputation the product enjoys owing to producers\u2019 know-how in selecting and preparing the ingredients and in the various stages of the production process that account for the distinctive taste and aroma of the product.
(9) The arguments of Bulgaria as set out in its reasoned statement of opposition and in the consultations carried out with T\u00fcrkiye can be summarised as follows.
(10) Bulgaria claimed that the registration of the name \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 would jeopardise the existence of a product called \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0441\u0435\u0440 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 \/ \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0437\u0435\u0440 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 and \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0441\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 \/ \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0437\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 (\u2018Kaiser pastarma\u2019 \/ \u2018Kaizer pastarma\u2019 and \u2018Kaiserovana pastarma\u2019 \/ \u2018Kaizerovana pastarma\u2019), that is a type of pastrami produced in Bulgaria. Bulgaria referred to Article 10(1), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, which stipulates that a reasoned statement of opposition shall be admissible if it shows that the registration of the name proposed would jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a trade mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least five years.
(11) In this context, Bulgaria in its opposition argued that the names used in Bulgaria are similar to the one submitted for registration by T\u00fcrkiye. Nevertheless, Bulgaria did not question the right to register \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 but aimed to protect the rights of producers of \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0441\u0435\u0440 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 \/ \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0437\u0435\u0440 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 and \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0441\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 \/ \u2018\u041a\u0430\u0439\u0437\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430\u2019 (\u2018Kaiser pastarma\u2019 \/ \u2018Kaizer pastarma\u2019 and \u2018Kaiserovana pastarma\u2019 \/ \u2018Kaizerovana pastarma\u2019), a product that enjoys a long-standing tradition of production in Bulgaria. In this context, Bulgaria pointed out the differences between the Bulgarian and Turkish products, in terms of ingredients, production technology, organoleptic characteristics and market position.
(12) In addition, Bulgaria indicated that the production method and the raw materials used in the production of the Bulgarian product named \u2018\u041f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0430\u2019 (\u2018Pastarma govezhda\u2019), included in the Register of Traditional Specialities Guaranteed, resembles that of \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019.
(13) Bulgaria also argued that a product called \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 is produced in several Member States, mainly in Germany, Belgium and France, and the registration as a PGI of \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 could consequently affect the production of products called \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 in these countries.
(14) T\u00fcrkiye pointed out the differences in the meaning of the names, highlighting in particular that the Turkish name is associated with geographical origin, whereas the Bulgarian names refer to the production method. T\u00fcrkiye highlighted that the ingredients used, and the production method differ, and that \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 has been sold on the EU market for a long time and the products have existed together for many years. The applicant concluded that the names in question can continue to co-exist on the market.
(15) The Commission has assessed the arguments which Bulgaria provided in its reasoned statement of opposition in light of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, taking into account the information it received regarding the consultations between the applicant and the opponent, and has reached the following conclusions.
(16) As regards the first point raised by Bulgaria, in accordance with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, \u2018the Commission may adopt implementing acts granting a transitional period of up to five years to enable products originating in a Member State or a third country the designation of which consists of or contains a name that contravenes Article 13(1) to continue to use the designation under which it was marketed on condition that an admissible statement of opposition under Article 49(3) or Article 51 shows that:(a) the registration of the name would jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name (\u2026)\u2019.
(17) In this case, after the consultations with T\u00fcrkiye, while not formally withdrawing its opposition, Bulgaria indicated that, in its opinion, the two names could coexist. Bulgaria also informed the Commission that it considered that a transitional period would not be appropriate. T\u00fcrkiye also expressed the view that the two names can coexist. As Bulgaria did not show that the registration would jeopardise the existence of the Bulgarian name, and without prejudice to the assessment of compliance of the Bulgarian name with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012, the Commission considers that a transitional period should not be granted.
(18) As regards the reference made by Bulgaria to \u2018\u041f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0430\u2019 (\u2018Pastarma govezhda\u2019) a Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) shares a similar production method and raw material as \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019, it should be noted that Bulgaria did not provide any legal argumentation or reasoning in this regard. For the sake of clarity, it should be recalled that the Commission, at the time of registering \u2018\u041f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0430\u2019 as a TSG, considered that \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 and other meat products named \u2018pastarma\u2019 or \u2018pastirma\u2019, or other similar names, are produced using production methods that are different from the one included in the product specification of \u2018\u041f\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044a\u0440\u043c\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0430\u2019 (\u2018Pastarma govezhda\u2019).
(19) As regards the use of the name \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 designating products produced in other European countries, as submitted by Bulgaria in its reasoned statement of opposition, it should be noted that the Commission did not receive reasoned statements of opposition related to the use of \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 from those countries.
(20) Accordingly, the name \u2018Kayseri Past\u0131rmas\u0131\u2019 should be entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.
(21) The measures provided for in this Implementing Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Quality Policy Committee for agricultural products, wine and spirit drinks,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:<\/p>\n\n\n\n