In a letter dated 10 June 2013, the Commission asked Spain and Italy to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with Article 51(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Pursuant to that Article, Spain sent by letter of 10 October 2013 its report on the end of the consultation period. In a letter dated 25 October 2013, Italy reiterated its opposition to the registration, citing reasons different to those evoked originally. Since no agreement was reached between these Member States within three months, the Commission must take a decision in accordance with Article 52(3)(b) of the said Regulation.

As regards the possible threat to the existence of a product which was legally on the market for at least five years prior to the date of publication or to products covered by the Protected Geographical Indication ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’, it appears from an examination of the documents provided by the parties that that ground for opposition has not been established. Besides, Italy no longer invokes it as a reason for maintaining its opposition. Consequently that reason must be rejected.

As regards non-compliance with the provisions of Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC, the statement of opposition mentions that the specific labelling provisions concerning types of vinegar (añada, crianza, reserva, gran reserva, ‘Vinagre al Pedro Ximénez’ and ‘Vinagre al moscatel’) are ambiguous indications that may mislead the consumer, in particular as to the characteristics of the foodstuff. It appears from an examination of the documents provided by the parties that that ground for opposition has not been established. Besides, Italy no longer invokes it as a reason for maintaining its opposition. Consequently that reason must be rejected.

As regards non-compliance with specific provisions concerning the marketing of the categories of grapevine products established by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, Italy argues that ‘Vinagre de Montilla-Moriles’ cannot be eligible for the name ‘wine vinegar’ set out in Annex XIb, point 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (now Annex VII, part II, point 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013). Spain has changed the description of the product in the specification and in point 3.2 of the Single Document by distinguishing between ‘wine vinegar’ and vinegar made from ‘wine vinegar’. Consequently the use of the name 'wine vinegar' for the corresponding distinct product appears to comply with Annex VII, part II, point 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. In accordance with Article 51(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, this non-substantive amendment does not require a new examination of the application by the Commission.

In the light of the above, the name ‘Vinagre de Montilla-Moriles’ should be entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications and the Single Document should be updated accordingly and published.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for agricultural product quality policy,