# Official Journal C 75/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 75 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5126 March 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 75

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5126 March 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Council |
| 2008/C 075/01 | Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 17 March 2008 on the situation of persons with disabilities in the European Union | 1 |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Council |
| 2008/C 075/02 | Council opinion of 4 March 2008 on the updated stability programme of Spain, 2007-2010 | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

2008/C 075/01

Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 17 March 2008 on the situation of persons with disabilities in the European Union

1

OPINIONS

Council

2008/C 075/02

Council opinion of 4 March 2008 on the updated stability programme of Spain, 2007-2010

5

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 075/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5037 — Beko Elektronik/Grundig Multimedia) (
  1
  ) | 9 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 075/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5037 — Beko Elektronik/Grundig Multimedia) (
  1
  )

1

9

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Council |
| 2008/C 075/04 | Council Decision of 17 March 2008 of appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training | 10 |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 075/05 | Euro exchange rates | 12 |
| 2008/C 075/06 | Euro exchange rates | 13 |
| 2008/C 075/07 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 423rd meeting on 9 February 2007 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators | 14 |
| 2008/C 075/08 | Final report of the Hearing Officer on the procedure in the Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 15 |
| 2008/C 075/09 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 424th meeting on 16 February 2007 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators | 18 |
| 2008/C 075/10 | Summary of Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators) (notified under document number C(2007) 512 final) | 19 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Council

2008/C 075/04

Council Decision of 17 March 2008 of appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

10

Commission

2008/C 075/05

Euro exchange rates

12

2008/C 075/06

Euro exchange rates

13

2008/C 075/07

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 423rd meeting on 9 February 2007 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators

14

2008/C 075/08

Final report of the Hearing Officer on the procedure in the Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

15

2008/C 075/09

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 424th meeting on 16 February 2007 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators

18

2008/C 075/10

Summary of Commission Decision of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators) (notified under document number C(2007) 512 final)

(notified under document number C(2007) 512 final)

19

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 075/11 | Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 25 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

Commission

2008/C 075/11

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

25

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 075/12 | Notice | s3 |

2008/C 075/12

Notice

Notice

s3

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/1

---

Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 17 March 2008 on the situation of persons with disabilities in the European Union

(2008/C 75/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,

Recalling that:

| 1. | the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the UN Convention’) adopted by the General Assembly at its sixty-first session in December 2006 not only confirms that disability is a human rights issue and a matter of law, but also aims to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy human rights on an equal basis with others; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the UN Convention’) adopted by the General Assembly at its sixty-first session in December 2006 not only confirms that disability is a human rights issue and a matter of law, but also aims to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy human rights on an equal basis with others;

| 2. | the Declaration regarding persons with a disability annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam provides that the institutions of the Community shall take account of the needs of persons with disabilities in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the Declaration regarding persons with a disability annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam provides that the institutions of the Community shall take account of the needs of persons with disabilities in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty;

| 3. | the Council adopted Conclusions in December 2003 on the follow up of the European Year of People with Disabilities, endorsing comprehensive social inclusion and the full achievement of equal opportunities for people with disabilities as objectives of the European Disability Action Plan for 2004-2010; |
| --- | --- |

3.

the Council adopted Conclusions in December 2003 on the follow up of the European Year of People with Disabilities, endorsing comprehensive social inclusion and the full achievement of equal opportunities for people with disabilities as objectives of the European Disability Action Plan for 2004-2010;

| 4. | the European Disability Action Plan 2004-2010 highlights three operational objectives: full implementation of the Employment Equality Directive (1), successful mainstreaming of disability issues in relevant Community policies, and improving accessibility for all; |
| --- | --- |

4.

the European Disability Action Plan 2004-2010 highlights three operational objectives: full implementation of the Employment Equality Directive (1), successful mainstreaming of disability issues in relevant Community policies, and improving accessibility for all;

| 5. | the basic principles aiming to ensure the equal effective enjoyment of human rights and freedoms by persons with disabilities under the UN Convention are: dignity and individual autonomy, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and in the field of work, respect for difference, equality of opportunity, accessibility, equality between men and women, and the full enjoyment of all human rights by children; |
| --- | --- |

5.

the basic principles aiming to ensure the equal effective enjoyment of human rights and freedoms by persons with disabilities under the UN Convention are: dignity and individual autonomy, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and in the field of work, respect for difference, equality of opportunity, accessibility, equality between men and women, and the full enjoyment of all human rights by children;

| 6. | at the first informal ministerial meeting on disability issues of 11 June 2007, the UN Convention was endorsed as a fundamental step for the promotion, protection and full realisation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons with disabilities. Ministers undertook to further develop policies so as to ensure the full implementation of the Convention and called on the European Commission to ensure that the new priorities of the European Disability Action Plan contribute to the effective implementation of the UN Convention; |
| --- | --- |

6.

at the first informal ministerial meeting on disability issues of 11 June 2007, the UN Convention was endorsed as a fundamental step for the promotion, protection and full realisation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons with disabilities. Ministers undertook to further develop policies so as to ensure the full implementation of the Convention and called on the European Commission to ensure that the new priorities of the European Disability Action Plan contribute to the effective implementation of the UN Convention;

| 7. | in its Resolution on the Follow-up of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007) (2) adopted in December 2007, the Council called on the Commission and the Member States, in accordance with their respective competences, to continue the process of signature, conclusion and ratification of the UN Convention. |
| --- | --- |

7.

in its Resolution on the Follow-up of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007) (2) adopted in December 2007, the Council called on the Commission and the Member States, in accordance with their respective competences, to continue the process of signature, conclusion and ratification of the UN Convention.

Welcome:

| 1. | the Commission Communication on the situation of disabled people in the European Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009, which describes in tangible terms the European commitment to ensure that persons with disabilities are addressed as citizens and active socio-economic actors contributing to the construction of a sustainable and cohesive Europe offering equal opportunities for all. All the actions in this Plan aim to meet the individual and diverse needs of persons with disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the Commission Communication on the situation of disabled people in the European Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009, which describes in tangible terms the European commitment to ensure that persons with disabilities are addressed as citizens and active socio-economic actors contributing to the construction of a sustainable and cohesive Europe offering equal opportunities for all. All the actions in this Plan aim to meet the individual and diverse needs of persons with disabilities;

| 2. | the results achieved in the implementation of the second phase of the European Disability Action Plan (2006-2007), which emphasises dignity, fundamental rights, protection against discrimination, fairness and social cohesion. It is now widely acknowledged that mainstreaming is a key to advancing disability issues and, accordingly, the Disability Action Plan encouraged activity and promoted access to social services while fostering accessible goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

2.

the results achieved in the implementation of the second phase of the European Disability Action Plan (2006-2007), which emphasises dignity, fundamental rights, protection against discrimination, fairness and social cohesion. It is now widely acknowledged that mainstreaming is a key to advancing disability issues and, accordingly, the Disability Action Plan encouraged activity and promoted access to social services while fostering accessible goods and services;

| 3. | the Commission's public consultation on new anti-discrimination measures to tackle discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in areas beyond employment; |
| --- | --- |

3.

the Commission's public consultation on new anti-discrimination measures to tackle discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in areas beyond employment;

| 4. | the progress achieved by the Member States and the European Community following the signature of the UN Convention; |
| --- | --- |

4.

the progress achieved by the Member States and the European Community following the signature of the UN Convention;

| 5. | the convergence of the European Disability Action Plan and the UN Convention. |
| --- | --- |

5.

the convergence of the European Disability Action Plan and the UN Convention.

Recognise that:

| 1. | persons with disabilities often remain disadvantaged and marginalised, especially in the field of work. Insufficient access to the labour market can mean that persons with disabilities are placed in vulnerable situations in society and exposed to serious risks of discrimination, poverty and social exclusion; |
| --- | --- |

1.

persons with disabilities often remain disadvantaged and marginalised, especially in the field of work. Insufficient access to the labour market can mean that persons with disabilities are placed in vulnerable situations in society and exposed to serious risks of discrimination, poverty and social exclusion;

| 2. | although in some Member States the unemployment rate of persons with disabilities remains high, in other Member States the employment rates are rising. This proves that national as well as European efforts are increasingly effective and should be further pursued and improved; |
| --- | --- |

2.

although in some Member States the unemployment rate of persons with disabilities remains high, in other Member States the employment rates are rising. This proves that national as well as European efforts are increasingly effective and should be further pursued and improved;

| 3. | analyses of the most recent data confirm the strong correlation between disability and ageing. The number of older people including older people with disabilities is increasing, and there is a growing need in the Community for accessible goods, services and infrastructure. The social services sector is indeed expanding, and meeting the needs of the ageing population will also mean creating new jobs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

analyses of the most recent data confirm the strong correlation between disability and ageing. The number of older people including older people with disabilities is increasing, and there is a growing need in the Community for accessible goods, services and infrastructure. The social services sector is indeed expanding, and meeting the needs of the ageing population will also mean creating new jobs;

| 4. | the cumulative effect of gender and disability implies that women with disabilities often face multiple forms of discrimination, have less independence, less access to education, training, employment, and health services, and therefore often face a greater risk of exclusion, poverty and abuse. |
| --- | --- |

4.

the cumulative effect of gender and disability implies that women with disabilities often face multiple forms of discrimination, have less independence, less access to education, training, employment, and health services, and therefore often face a greater risk of exclusion, poverty and abuse.

Underline that:

| 1. | the EU Disability Strategy emphasises the importance of equal access to inclusive, quality education and lifelong learning, which are crucial for enabling persons with disabilities to participate fully in society and improve their quality of life; |
| --- | --- |

1.

the EU Disability Strategy emphasises the importance of equal access to inclusive, quality education and lifelong learning, which are crucial for enabling persons with disabilities to participate fully in society and improve their quality of life;

| 2. | accessible built environments, transport and Information and Communication Technology (ICT), both in urban and rural areas, are crucial for the realisation of a society which provides genuine access to equal rights, offering its citizens real autonomy and the means to pursue independent and active economic and social lives. Such accessibility represents no less than a cornerstone of an inclusive society based on non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

2.

accessible built environments, transport and Information and Communication Technology (ICT), both in urban and rural areas, are crucial for the realisation of a society which provides genuine access to equal rights, offering its citizens real autonomy and the means to pursue independent and active economic and social lives. Such accessibility represents no less than a cornerstone of an inclusive society based on non-discrimination;

| 3. | disability statistics are needed to establish a picture of the overall situation of persons with disabilities in Europe. Such statistical and research data allow informed disability policies to be formulated and implemented at the different levels of governance; |
| --- | --- |

3.

disability statistics are needed to establish a picture of the overall situation of persons with disabilities in Europe. Such statistical and research data allow informed disability policies to be formulated and implemented at the different levels of governance;

| 4. | people with disabilities and their organisations at national, regional and local levels should be recognised by Member States as playing an important advisory role when decisions are made on disability matters and can also contribute to the implementation of decisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

people with disabilities and their organisations at national, regional and local levels should be recognised by Member States as playing an important advisory role when decisions are made on disability matters and can also contribute to the implementation of decisions.

Invite the Commission to:

| 1. | strengthen efforts to prevent and combat discrimination based on disability, inside and outside the labour market, promoting access both to the labour market and to goods and services, in accordance with the non-discrimination framework strategy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

strengthen efforts to prevent and combat discrimination based on disability, inside and outside the labour market, promoting access both to the labour market and to goods and services, in accordance with the non-discrimination framework strategy;

| 2. | present as soon as possible a proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the UN Convention and to implement the Convention in the areas of Community competence; |
| --- | --- |

2.

present as soon as possible a proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the UN Convention and to implement the Convention in the areas of Community competence;

| 3. | support the effective implementation of the UN Convention at the different levels of governance, in particular following its conclusion by the Community and ratification by Member States, including through awareness-raising and by financing activities under existing Community programmes such as the Progress Programme (3). |
| --- | --- |

3.

support the effective implementation of the UN Convention at the different levels of governance, in particular following its conclusion by the Community and ratification by Member States, including through awareness-raising and by financing activities under existing Community programmes such as the Progress Programme (3).

Invite the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with their respective competences, to ensure:

| 1. | that people with disabilities enjoy their human rights in full, by:






  (a) | ratifying and concluding, and then implementing the UN Convention, including shared European solutions within a coherent and coordinated approach for the implementation of the UN Convention; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

that people with disabilities enjoy their human rights in full, by:

(a)

ratifying and concluding, and then implementing the UN Convention, including shared European solutions within a coherent and coordinated approach for the implementation of the UN Convention;

| (b) | further developing a comprehensive policy mix of all appropriate instruments with a view both to eliminating discrimination and to including persons with disabilities in society, based on the human rights approach and the mainstreaming of disability; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

further developing a comprehensive policy mix of all appropriate instruments with a view both to eliminating discrimination and to including persons with disabilities in society, based on the human rights approach and the mainstreaming of disability;

| (c) | encouraging persons with disabilities to be active in the labour force by ensuring the development and implementation of anti-discrimination measures, active support and the removal of obstacles; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

encouraging persons with disabilities to be active in the labour force by ensuring the development and implementation of anti-discrimination measures, active support and the removal of obstacles;

| (d) | addressing the issue of multiple discrimination of women with disabilities and facilitating their full development, advancement and empowerment; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

addressing the issue of multiple discrimination of women with disabilities and facilitating their full development, advancement and empowerment;

| (e) | taking measures to allow persons with disabilities, as far as possible, to live independently, to be included in the community, and to have access to quality care and support services; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

taking measures to allow persons with disabilities, as far as possible, to live independently, to be included in the community, and to have access to quality care and support services;

| (f) | reinforcing the mainstreaming of disability issues, building on the efforts undertaken by the Member States to oblige public bodies to promote equality of opportunities for persons with disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

reinforcing the mainstreaming of disability issues, building on the efforts undertaken by the Member States to oblige public bodies to promote equality of opportunities for persons with disabilities;

| (g) | further supporting the Member States and regional and local communities in the deinstitutionalisation process whenever this is in the best interest of people with disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

further supporting the Member States and regional and local communities in the deinstitutionalisation process whenever this is in the best interest of people with disabilities;

| (h) | examining any gaps that may exist in the current Community legislative framework of protection against discrimination, in particular on the grounds of disability, and considering appropriate and targeted responses; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

examining any gaps that may exist in the current Community legislative framework of protection against discrimination, in particular on the grounds of disability, and considering appropriate and targeted responses;

| (i) | strengthening capacities at both national and Community level to collect and analyse appropriate information, including statistical and research data, in compliance with legal safeguards and data protection rules. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

strengthening capacities at both national and Community level to collect and analyse appropriate information, including statistical and research data, in compliance with legal safeguards and data protection rules.

| 2. | accessibility for people with disabilities:






  (a) | improving accessibility is a precondition for autonomy, inclusion and participation, and enables people with disabilities to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

accessibility for people with disabilities:

(a)

improving accessibility is a precondition for autonomy, inclusion and participation, and enables people with disabilities to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms;

| (b) | enhancing labour market participation through the combination of flexible employment schemes, supported employment, social economy, active inclusion and positive measures like support services, wage subsidies, workplace adaptations, the use of assistive technologies and personal assistance, will lead to better employment opportunities for all persons with disabilities and also improve productivity; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

enhancing labour market participation through the combination of flexible employment schemes, supported employment, social economy, active inclusion and positive measures like support services, wage subsidies, workplace adaptations, the use of assistive technologies and personal assistance, will lead to better employment opportunities for all persons with disabilities and also improve productivity;

| (c) | people with disabilities should be provided with good access to education and specific measures should be taken, where appropriate, to enable children with disabilities to participate in mainstream education; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

people with disabilities should be provided with good access to education and specific measures should be taken, where appropriate, to enable children with disabilities to participate in mainstream education;

| (d) | the use of the Structural Funds, including the European Social Fund (ESF), to support employment, training and equal opportunities for people with disabilities should be further promoted; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the use of the Structural Funds, including the European Social Fund (ESF), to support employment, training and equal opportunities for people with disabilities should be further promoted;

| (e) | the ongoing work on the development of shared European standards for accessibility should be promoted and their application in public procurement encouraged; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the ongoing work on the development of shared European standards for accessibility should be promoted and their application in public procurement encouraged;

| (f) | quality services of general interest, including social, health, and rehabilitation services, should be made accessible to persons with disabilities and their families through the development of voluntary Europe-wide quality frameworks; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

quality services of general interest, including social, health, and rehabilitation services, should be made accessible to persons with disabilities and their families through the development of voluntary Europe-wide quality frameworks;

| (g) | the inclusion of all citizens in the Information Society should be promoted in line with the Riga declaration on e-inclusion by developing accessible information and communication technologies and by means of assistive technologies for persons with disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

the inclusion of all citizens in the Information Society should be promoted in line with the Riga declaration on e-inclusion by developing accessible information and communication technologies and by means of assistive technologies for persons with disabilities;

| (h) | access to mainstream goods, services and infrastructure should be improved, so as to empower persons with disabilities to act as consumers; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

access to mainstream goods, services and infrastructure should be improved, so as to empower persons with disabilities to act as consumers;

| (i) | persons with disabilities should be guaranteed full enjoyment of their rights as passengers as far as reasonably possible, and their rights should be secured through the promotion of relevant European transport legislation; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

persons with disabilities should be guaranteed full enjoyment of their rights as passengers as far as reasonably possible, and their rights should be secured through the promotion of relevant European transport legislation;

| (j) | the rights of all persons with disabilities to be included in society should be promoted and, wherever appropriate, the gradual replacement of care institutions by community-based alternatives should be encouraged. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

the rights of all persons with disabilities to be included in society should be promoted and, wherever appropriate, the gradual replacement of care institutions by community-based alternatives should be encouraged.

| 3. | that work begins on a European disability strategy to succeed the current European Disability Action Plan 2004-2010, including by:






  (a) | implementing in full the European Action Plan 2008-2009; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

that work begins on a European disability strategy to succeed the current European Disability Action Plan 2004-2010, including by:

(a)

implementing in full the European Action Plan 2008-2009;

| (b) | assessing how national actions reflect the commitments made by the European Community and the Member States to fully implement the UN Convention at European level, and considering setting consistent and comparable national targets to that end. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

assessing how national actions reflect the commitments made by the European Community and the Member States to fully implement the UN Convention at European level, and considering setting consistent and comparable national targets to that end.

Invite the institutions of the European Union:

to continue their efforts in providing equal treatment and opportunities to all applicants for employment, including people with disabilities. Moreover, the institutions of the European Union are encouraged to further improve the accessibility of their own buildings and facilities.

Invite people with disabilities and their organisations:

| 1. | to continue their coordination so as to communicate their needs to policy makers and to identify and analyse policy options; |
| --- | --- |

1.

to continue their coordination so as to communicate their needs to policy makers and to identify and analyse policy options;

| 2. | to participate in the development and implementation of the European Disability Action Plan and the United Nations Convention together with the Commission and Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

to participate in the development and implementation of the European Disability Action Plan and the United Nations Convention together with the Commission and Member States.

Invite all stakeholders to:

| 1. | maintain a dialogue (including with people with disabilities and their organisations, public authorities, and the social partners) in order to understand each other's needs and to generate consensual solutions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

maintain a dialogue (including with people with disabilities and their organisations, public authorities, and the social partners) in order to understand each other's needs and to generate consensual solutions;

| 2. | use the opportunities provided by their participation in the EU High Level Group on Disability to sustain the mainstreaming of disability issues in Community policies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

use the opportunities provided by their participation in the EU High Level Group on Disability to sustain the mainstreaming of disability issues in Community policies.

Invite future Presidencies:

to continue strengthening the European human rights approach to disability, ensuring comprehensive social inclusion and the full achievement of equal opportunities for people with disabilities and, to that end, to maintain the dialogue and close cooperation between the Community, the Member States, people with disabilities and their organisations, and other stakeholders.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/78/EC (OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16).

(2)  OJ C 308, 19.12.2007, p. 1.

(3)  Decision No 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity — Progress (OJ L 315, 15.11.2006, p. 1).

---

OPINIONS

Council

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/5

---

COUNCIL OPINION

of 4 March 2008

on the updated stability programme of Spain, 2007-2010

(2008/C 75/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,

After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,

HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:

| (1) | On 4 March 2008, the Council examined the updated stability programme of Spain, which covers the period 2007 to 2010 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 4 March 2008, the Council examined the updated stability programme of Spain, which covers the period 2007 to 2010 (2).

| (2) | Spain has been enjoying a long period of sustained growth averaging 3,75 % over the last twelve years, well above the euro area (at around 2 %). Persistently low real interest rates and dynamic demographics have been feeding strong domestic demand and job creation as well as an unprecedented growth in the housing sector.
  Moreover, successive labour market reforms significantly reduced structural unemployment. In parallel, a number of imbalances have emerged or persist, such as a widening external deficit and the inflation differential with the euro area, while productivity growth was consistently low. Regarding public finances, a successful expenditure-based consolidation process took place since the mid-nineties, which improved the government balance from a deficit of around 6 % of GDP to a close-to-balance position in 2000 and a comfortable surplus since 2005. Total tax receipts have grown by about 4,25 percentage points of GDP since the mid-nineties boosted by a tax-rich growth pattern. Going forward, population ageing might negatively impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances, mainly as a result of increasing pressure from pension expenditure. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Spain has been enjoying a long period of sustained growth averaging 3,75 % over the last twelve years, well above the euro area (at around 2 %). Persistently low real interest rates and dynamic demographics have been feeding strong domestic demand and job creation as well as an unprecedented growth in the housing sector.

Moreover, successive labour market reforms significantly reduced structural unemployment. In parallel, a number of imbalances have emerged or persist, such as a widening external deficit and the inflation differential with the euro area, while productivity growth was consistently low. Regarding public finances, a successful expenditure-based consolidation process took place since the mid-nineties, which improved the government balance from a deficit of around 6 % of GDP to a close-to-balance position in 2000 and a comfortable surplus since 2005. Total tax receipts have grown by about 4,25 percentage points of GDP since the mid-nineties boosted by a tax-rich growth pattern. Going forward, population ageing might negatively impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances, mainly as a result of increasing pressure from pension expenditure.

| (3) | The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will decelerate from 3,8 % in 2007 to 3,1 % on average over the rest of the programme period. Assessed against currently available information (3), this scenario appears to be favourable throughout the programme period. In 2008, inflationary pressures, lower growth expectations, as well as the developments in the housing sector are expected to weigh on disposable income and point towards lower GDP growth than projected in the programme. Also the growth composition presented in the programme is favourable, in particular concerning the adjustment path of the residential construction sector. While the programme expects a deceleration of investment in dwellings, the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast projects a contraction of the sector, starting already in 2008, implying a stagnation of total investment in 2009. However, due to lower imports the contribution of net exports to growth could improve compared to the programme. Finally, the programme's projections for inflation appear on the low side in the light of the most recent available information on food and oil prices. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will decelerate from 3,8 % in 2007 to 3,1 % on average over the rest of the programme period. Assessed against currently available information (3), this scenario appears to be favourable throughout the programme period. In 2008, inflationary pressures, lower growth expectations, as well as the developments in the housing sector are expected to weigh on disposable income and point towards lower GDP growth than projected in the programme. Also the growth composition presented in the programme is favourable, in particular concerning the adjustment path of the residential construction sector. While the programme expects a deceleration of investment in dwellings, the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast projects a contraction of the sector, starting already in 2008, implying a stagnation of total investment in 2009. However, due to lower imports the contribution of net exports to growth could improve compared to the programme. Finally, the programme's projections for inflation appear on the low side in the light of the most recent available information on food and oil prices.

| (4) | For 2007, the general government surplus is estimated at 1,8 % of GDP in the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast, against a target of 1 % of GDP set in the previous update of the stability programme. Half of the difference can be explained by the positive base effect from 2006. The other half results from higher-than-targeted revenue growth in 2007, which was however partly offset by higher-than-budgeted expenditure growth. Recent information points to the possibility of a better final outcome above 2 % of GDP, owing to even higher-than-expected revenues in 2007, especially from direct taxes, reflecting the high dynamism of corporate profits. The better-than-expected budgetary outcomes in 2006 were used to pursue more ambitious budgetary targets than those set in the end-2006 update of the stability programme, although some municipal and regional expenditure overruns were recorded. The Council notes that budgetary implementation in 2007 was broadly consistent with the April 2007 Eurogroup orientations for budgetary policies. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

For 2007, the general government surplus is estimated at 1,8 % of GDP in the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast, against a target of 1 % of GDP set in the previous update of the stability programme. Half of the difference can be explained by the positive base effect from 2006. The other half results from higher-than-targeted revenue growth in 2007, which was however partly offset by higher-than-budgeted expenditure growth. Recent information points to the possibility of a better final outcome above 2 % of GDP, owing to even higher-than-expected revenues in 2007, especially from direct taxes, reflecting the high dynamism of corporate profits. The better-than-expected budgetary outcomes in 2006 were used to pursue more ambitious budgetary targets than those set in the end-2006 update of the stability programme, although some municipal and regional expenditure overruns were recorded. The Council notes that budgetary implementation in 2007 was broadly consistent with the April 2007 Eurogroup orientations for budgetary policies.

| (5) | Within the broad goal of maintaining macroeconomic and budgetary stability, the most recent update of the stability programme aims at respecting the medium-term objective (MTO), which is a balanced position in structural terms (i.e. in cyclically-adjusted terms net of one-off and other temporary measures), by a comfortable margin. The headline general government surplus is targeted to decline from 1,8 % of GDP in 2007 to 1,2 % of GDP in 2008 and to remain stable thereafter. The deterioration in 2008 stems from a small increase in the expenditure ratio and a decline in the revenue ratio by 0,5 percentage point of GDP. Direct taxes are expected to fall by 0,25 percentage point of GDP in 2008 as a result of lower economic growth and the ongoing impact of the 2007 tax reform. After 2008, revenue and expenditure components are assumed to remain broadly stable. The primary balance is planned to decline from an estimated surplus of 3,4 % of GDP in 2007 to 2,7 % in 2008, remaining broadly stable thereafter. The structural balance calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is projected to slightly decline from 2,25 % in 2007 to 1,75 % in 2008 and to increase to around 2 % in 2009 and 2010. Compared with the previous programme, the new update presents, building on the better-than-expected 2007 outturn, somewhat better targets for 2008 and 2009 against a broadly similar macroeconomic background. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Within the broad goal of maintaining macroeconomic and budgetary stability, the most recent update of the stability programme aims at respecting the medium-term objective (MTO), which is a balanced position in structural terms (i.e. in cyclically-adjusted terms net of one-off and other temporary measures), by a comfortable margin. The headline general government surplus is targeted to decline from 1,8 % of GDP in 2007 to 1,2 % of GDP in 2008 and to remain stable thereafter. The deterioration in 2008 stems from a small increase in the expenditure ratio and a decline in the revenue ratio by 0,5 percentage point of GDP. Direct taxes are expected to fall by 0,25 percentage point of GDP in 2008 as a result of lower economic growth and the ongoing impact of the 2007 tax reform. After 2008, revenue and expenditure components are assumed to remain broadly stable. The primary balance is planned to decline from an estimated surplus of 3,4 % of GDP in 2007 to 2,7 % in 2008, remaining broadly stable thereafter. The structural balance calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is projected to slightly decline from 2,25 % in 2007 to 1,75 % in 2008 and to increase to around 2 % in 2009 and 2010. Compared with the previous programme, the new update presents, building on the better-than-expected 2007 outturn, somewhat better targets for 2008 and 2009 against a broadly similar macroeconomic background.

| (6) | The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced in 2008, but outcomes could be worse than projected in 2009 and 2010. Specifically, in 2008, the impact of possibly lower economic growth would be broadly offset by the positive base effect from higher revenues in 2007 than estimated in the programme. However, the favourable macroeconomic assumptions for 2009 and 2010 would not be compensated by other factors, which points to the risk of lower budgetary surpluses. In particular, tax revenue projections may turn out to be optimistic on the back of less buoyant corporate profits and housing market. On the other hand, Spain has a good track record of budgetary consolidation. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced in 2008, but outcomes could be worse than projected in 2009 and 2010. Specifically, in 2008, the impact of possibly lower economic growth would be broadly offset by the positive base effect from higher revenues in 2007 than estimated in the programme. However, the favourable macroeconomic assumptions for 2009 and 2010 would not be compensated by other factors, which points to the risk of lower budgetary surpluses. In particular, tax revenue projections may turn out to be optimistic on the back of less buoyant corporate profits and housing market. On the other hand, Spain has a good track record of budgetary consolidation.

| (7) | In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to maintain the MTO by a large margin throughout the programme period. The fiscal policy stance implied by the update is in line with the Stability and Growth Pact throughout the period. The Council notes that it is also consistent with the April 2007 Eurogroup orientations for budgetary policies for the year 2008. The projected weakening in the structural surplus in 2008 cannot be regarded as entailing a pro-cyclical stance but partly reflects a decline in the tax revenue as a percent of GDP resulting from a slowing of the economy and the fading housing boom. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to maintain the MTO by a large margin throughout the programme period. The fiscal policy stance implied by the update is in line with the Stability and Growth Pact throughout the period. The Council notes that it is also consistent with the April 2007 Eurogroup orientations for budgetary policies for the year 2008. The projected weakening in the structural surplus in 2008 cannot be regarded as entailing a pro-cyclical stance but partly reflects a decline in the tax revenue as a percent of GDP resulting from a slowing of the economy and the fading housing boom.

| (8) | Spain appears to be at medium risk with regard to the sustainability of public finances. The long-term budgetary impact of ageing is well above the EU average, mainly as a result of a relatively high increase in pension expenditure as a share of GDP over the coming decades. The budgetary position in 2007, reflected in a strong primary surplus as well as a low and decreasing debt ratio, contributes to offsetting the projected long-term budgetary impact of ageing populations. However, this is not sufficient to fully cover future spending pressures. Maintaining high primary surpluses over the medium term and implementing further measures aimed at curbing the substantial increase in age-related expenditures would contribute to reducing risks to the sustainability of public finances. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Spain appears to be at medium risk with regard to the sustainability of public finances. The long-term budgetary impact of ageing is well above the EU average, mainly as a result of a relatively high increase in pension expenditure as a share of GDP over the coming decades. The budgetary position in 2007, reflected in a strong primary surplus as well as a low and decreasing debt ratio, contributes to offsetting the projected long-term budgetary impact of ageing populations. However, this is not sufficient to fully cover future spending pressures. Maintaining high primary surpluses over the medium term and implementing further measures aimed at curbing the substantial increase in age-related expenditures would contribute to reducing risks to the sustainability of public finances.

| (9) | The stability programme is fully consistent with the October 2007 implementation report of the national reform programme (NRP). In particular, the update provides a qualitative assessment of the overall impact of the NRP within the medium-term fiscal strategy as well as sufficient information on the direct budgetary costs associated with some of the reforms envisaged in the NRP, e.g. R & D, education and infrastructures. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The stability programme is fully consistent with the October 2007 implementation report of the national reform programme (NRP). In particular, the update provides a qualitative assessment of the overall impact of the NRP within the medium-term fiscal strategy as well as sufficient information on the direct budgetary costs associated with some of the reforms envisaged in the NRP, e.g. R & D, education and infrastructures.

| (10) | The budgetary strategy in the programme is broadly consistent with the country-specific broad economic policy guidelines and the guidelines for euro area Member States in the area of budgetary policies issued in the context of the Lisbon strategy. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The budgetary strategy in the programme is broadly consistent with the country-specific broad economic policy guidelines and the guidelines for euro area Member States in the area of budgetary policies issued in the context of the Lisbon strategy.

| (11) | As regards the data requirements specified in the code of conduct for stability and convergence programmes, the programme provides almost all required data and has some gaps in the optional data (4). |
| --- | --- |

(11)

As regards the data requirements specified in the code of conduct for stability and convergence programmes, the programme provides almost all required data and has some gaps in the optional data (4).

The overall conclusion is that the medium-term budgetary position is sound with high general government surpluses above the MTO and a relatively low debt ratio. However, given favourable economic growth assumptions and the end of the housing boom, the projected government revenue might turn out to be on the high side. In this context, a careful assessment of the impact on the general government balance of permanent tax cuts and/or expenditure increases will be crucial to maintain a strong budgetary position and to ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances, which is at medium risk. Fostering productivity-enhancing expenditure items, such as R & D, infrastructure and education, is important to underpin a smooth adjustment of the economy in the light of large external imbalances, the contraction of the housing sector and the existing inflation differential with the euro area.

In view of the above assessment, while maintaining a strong budgetary position, Spain is invited to further improve the long-term sustainability of public finances with additional measures to contain the future impact of ageing on spending programmes.

Spain is also invited to improve compliance with the submission deadline for stability and convergence programmes specified in the code of conduct.

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

| | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Real GDP
  (% change) | SP Dec 2007 | 3,9 | 3,8 | 3,1 | 3,0 | 3,2 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 3,9 | 3,8 | 3,0 | 2,3 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | 3,8 | 3,4 | 3,3 | 3,3 | n.a. |
| HICP inflation
  (%) | SP Dec 2007 (8) | 3,4 | 2,7 | 3,3 | 2,7 | 2,8 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 3,6 | 2,6 | 2,9 | 2,7 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 (8) | 3,5 | 2,7 | 2,6 | 2,5 | n.a. |
| Output gap (5)

  (% of potential GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | – 1,1 | – 0,9 | – 1,4 | – 1,9 | – 1,6 |
| COM Nov 2007 (6) | – 0,6 | – 0,5 | – 0,9 | – 1,8 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | – 0,9 | – 1,2 | – 1,5 | – 1,6 | n.a. |
| Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world
  (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | – 8,1 | – 9,0 | – 8,9 | – 8,8 | – 8,7 |
| COM Nov 2007 | – 8,1 | – 8,7 | – 9,1 | – 9,3 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | – 7,5 | – 8,2 | – 8,4 | – 8,7 | n.a. |
| General government balance
  (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | 1,8 | 1,8 | 1,2 | 1,2 | 1,2 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 1,8 | 1,8 | 1,2 | 0,6 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | 1,4 | 1,0 | 0,9 | 0,9 | n.a. |
| Primary balance
  (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | 3,4 | 3,4 | 2,7 | 2,6 | 2,6 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 3,5 | 3,4 | 2,7 | 2,1 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | 3,0 | 2,5 | 2,3 | 2,2 | n.a. |
| Cyclically-adjusted balance (5)

  (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | 2,3 | 2,2 | 1,8 | 2,0 | 1,9 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 2,1 | 2,0 | 1,6 | 1,4 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | 1,8 | 1,5 | 1,6 | 1,6 | n.a. |
| Structural balance (7)

  (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | 2,3 | 2,2 | 1,8 | 2,0 | 1,9 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 2,1 | 2,0 | 1,6 | 1,4 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | 1,8 | 1,5 | 1,6 | 1,6 | n.a. |
| Government gross debt
  (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2007 | 39,7 | 36,2 | 34,0 | 32,0 | 30,0 |
| COM Nov 2007 | 39,7 | 36,3 | 34,6 | 33,0 | n.a. |
| SP Dec 2006 | 39,7 | 36,6 | 34,3 | 32,2 | n.a. |
| Stability programme (SP); Commission services' autumn 2007 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations. |

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Real GDP

(% change)

SP Dec 2007

3,9

3,8

3,1

3,0

3,2

COM Nov 2007

3,9

3,8

3,0

2,3

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

3,8

3,4

3,3

3,3

n.a.

HICP inflation

(%)

SP Dec 2007 (8)

3,4

2,7

3,3

2,7

2,8

COM Nov 2007

3,6

2,6

2,9

2,7

n.a.

SP Dec 2006 (8)

3,5

2,7

2,6

2,5

n.a.

Output gap (5)

(% of potential GDP)

SP Dec 2007

– 1,1

– 0,9

– 1,4

– 1,9

– 1,6

COM Nov 2007 (6)

– 0,6

– 0,5

– 0,9

– 1,8

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

– 0,9

– 1,2

– 1,5

– 1,6

n.a.

Net lending/borrowing vis-à-vis the rest of the world

(% of GDP)

SP Dec 2007

– 8,1

– 9,0

– 8,9

– 8,8

– 8,7

COM Nov 2007

– 8,1

– 8,7

– 9,1

– 9,3

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

– 7,5

– 8,2

– 8,4

– 8,7

n.a.

General government balance

(% of GDP)

SP Dec 2007

1,8

1,8

1,2

1,2

1,2

COM Nov 2007

1,8

1,8

1,2

0,6

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

1,4

1,0

0,9

0,9

n.a.

Primary balance

(% of GDP)

SP Dec 2007

3,4

3,4

2,7

2,6

2,6

COM Nov 2007

3,5

3,4

2,7

2,1

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

3,0

2,5

2,3

2,2

n.a.

Cyclically-adjusted balance (5)

(% of GDP)

SP Dec 2007

2,3

2,2

1,8

2,0

1,9

COM Nov 2007

2,1

2,0

1,6

1,4

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

1,8

1,5

1,6

1,6

n.a.

Structural balance (7)

(% of GDP)

SP Dec 2007

2,3

2,2

1,8

2,0

1,9

COM Nov 2007

2,1

2,0

1,6

1,4

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

1,8

1,5

1,6

1,6

n.a.

Government gross debt

(% of GDP)

SP Dec 2007

39,7

36,2

34,0

32,0

30,0

COM Nov 2007

39,7

36,3

34,6

33,0

n.a.

SP Dec 2006

39,7

36,6

34,3

32,2

n.a.

Stability programme (SP); Commission services' autumn 2007 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

---

(1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm

(2)  The update was submitted more than 3 weeks beyond the 1 December deadline set in the code of conduct.

(3)  The assessment takes also into account the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast and the Commission assessment of the October 2007 implementation report of the national reform programme.

(4)  In particular, table 1b (price developments), item 3 (HICP); table 1c (labour market developments), item 6 (compensation of employees) and the data on the functional classification of public expenditure are missing.

(5)  Output gaps and cyclically-adjusted balances according to the programmes as recalculated by Commission services on the basis of the information in the programmes.

(6)  Based on estimated potential growth of 3,5 %, 3,7 %, 3,4 % and 3,2 % respectively in the period 2006-2009.

(7)  There are no one-off and other temporary measures in the most recent programme and Commission services' autumn forecast.

(8)  Private consumption deflator.

Sources:

Stability programme (SP); Commission services' autumn 2007 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5037 — Beko Elektronik/Grundig Multimedia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 75/03)

On 7 March 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5037. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5037. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Council

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/10

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 17 March 2008

of appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

(2008/C 75/04)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of nominees submitted to the Council by the Commission as regards the employees' and employers' representatives,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 18 September 2006 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2006 to 17 September 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 18 September 2006 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2006 to 17 September 2009.

| (2) | Three members' seats on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employees' representatives have become vacant as a result of the resignation of Ms Mar Rodrigues Torres, Mr Jeff Maes and Mr Jean-Claude Quentin. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Three members' seats on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employees' representatives have become vacant as a result of the resignation of Ms Mar Rodrigues Torres, Mr Jeff Maes and Mr Jean-Claude Quentin.

| (3) | Three members' seats on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employers' representatives have become vacant as a result of the resignation of Mr George Pantelides, Mr Samo Hribar-Milic and Mr Anthony Thompson, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Three members' seats on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employers' representatives have become vacant as a result of the resignation of Mr George Pantelides, Mr Samo Hribar-Milic and Mr Anthony Thompson,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following persons are hereby appointed member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2009:

I.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES' ORGANISATIONS

| Spain | Ms Luz Blanca COSIO ALMEIRA
  UGT Spain |
| --- | --- |
| Belgium | Ms Mieke DE RAEDEMAECKER
  FGTB |
| France | Mr Stéphane LARDY
  Force Ouvrière |

Spain

Ms Luz Blanca COSIO ALMEIRA

UGT Spain

Belgium

Ms Mieke DE RAEDEMAECKER

FGTB

France

Mr Stéphane LARDY

Force Ouvrière

II.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

| Cyprus | Mr Michael PILIKOS
  Cyprus Employers and Industrialists Federation (OEB) |
| --- | --- |
| Slovenia | Mr Anze HIRSL
  Employers' Association of Slovenia (ZDS) |
| United Kingdom | Mr Richard WAINER
  Confederation of British Industry (CBI) |

Cyprus

Mr Michael PILIKOS

Cyprus Employers and Industrialists Federation (OEB)

Slovenia

Mr Anze HIRSL

Employers' Association of Slovenia (ZDS)

United Kingdom

Mr Richard WAINER

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Done at Brussels, 17 March 2008.

For the Council

The President

I. JARC

---

(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2051/2004 (OJ L 355, 1.12.2004, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 240, 5.10.2006, p. 1.

2

---

Commission

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 March 2008

(2008/C 75/05)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5569 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4597 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78105 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4190 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5728 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 118,15 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0865 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,455 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 256,49 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5310 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,7165 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 32,663 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9409 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7036 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5870 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 12,1126 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9376 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1527 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 522,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,5875 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,9680 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2602 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 300,13 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9782 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,425 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,8680 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,042 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7034 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,6464 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5569

JPY

Japanese yen

155,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4597

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78105

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4190

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5728

ISK

Iceland króna

118,15

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0865

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,455

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

256,49

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5310

RON

Romanian leu

3,7165

SKK

Slovak koruna

32,663

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9409

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7036

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5870

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

12,1126

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9376

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1527

KRW

South Korean won

1 522,65

ZAR

South African rand

12,5875

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,9680

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2602

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 300,13

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9782

PHP

Philippine peso

64,425

RUB

Russian rouble

36,8680

THB

Thai baht

49,042

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7034

MXN

Mexican peso

16,6464

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 March 2008

(2008/C 75/06)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5423 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 153,2 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4598 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,7783 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4121 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5632 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 121,56 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1178 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,491 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 258,19 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5368 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,731 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 32,774 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9237 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7087 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5817 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,9983 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9458 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1427 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 557,11 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,5545 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,8757 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,261 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 243,14 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9014 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,697 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,728 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,313 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6853 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5373 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5423

JPY

Japanese yen

153,2

DKK

Danish krone

7,4598

GBP

Pound sterling

0,7783

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4121

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5632

ISK

Iceland króna

121,56

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1178

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,491

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

258,19

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5368

RON

Romanian leu

3,731

SKK

Slovak koruna

32,774

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9237

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7087

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5817

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,9983

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9458

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1427

KRW

South Korean won

1 557,11

ZAR

South African rand

12,5545

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,8757

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,261

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 243,14

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9014

PHP

Philippine peso

63,697

RUB

Russian rouble

36,728

THB

Thai baht

48,313

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6853

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5373

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/14

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 423rd meeting on 9 February 2007 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators

(2008/C 75/07)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the product and the geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the product and the geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission legal assessment of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission legal assessment of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission view that the infringements refer to four complex and continuous infringements. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission view that the infringements refer to four complex and continuous infringements.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as their object and/or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as their object and/or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have appreciably affected trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have appreciably affected trade between Member States.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regarding the addressees of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regarding the addressees of the decision.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regarding the duration of the infringements and the application of limitation periods. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regarding the duration of the infringements and the application of limitation periods.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's method of calculation of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's method of calculation of the fines.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/15

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer on the procedure in the Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 75/08)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations:

Summary of the case

The present case was initiated following information provided in the summer of 2003 by an informant who approached the Commission with information concerning the existence of cartel activities among the four major manufacturers of elevators and escalators in the European Union.

Starting in January 2004, a series of inspections under Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 took place in a number of countries including initially Belgium and Germany, and subsequently Luxembourg and the Netherlands. These inspections and a large number of applications under the Commission's Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases provided the Commission with evidence of infringements of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty through agreements and concerted practices, the facts of which as set out in the Statement of Objections (‘SO’) are not contested as such by the addressees of the draft Decision.

The initiation of proceedings, access to file, waiver of the right to an oral hearing

On 7 October 2005, the Commission addressed a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to the following undertakings: KONE Belgium SA, KONE GmbH, KONE Luxembourg SARL, KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, KONE Corporation (hereinafter jointly ‘KONE’), NV OTIS SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, General Technic-Otis SARL, General Technic SARL, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company (hereinafter jointly ‘OTIS’), Schindler SA/NV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, Schindler SARL, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Holding Ltd (hereinafter jointly ‘Schindler’), ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp AG (hereinafter jointly ‘ThyssenKrupp’), Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, United Technologies Corporation and two other undertakings.

The undertakings were given access to the Commission's investigation file in the form of (a) copy(ies) on DVD. Access to documents relating to oral statements submitted by Leniency applicants was given at the Commission premises.

All the companies to which the SO had been addressed submitted written comments in response to the objections raised by the Commission.

None of the addressees to the SO chose to request an oral hearing and therefore no oral hearing took place in the present case.

The main procedural issues raised by the parties

In the course of the proceedings leading to the present draft decision, a series of procedural issues was raised, in particular the following:

| — | The deadline for replying to the SO
  Most of the addressees of the SO requested an extension of the deadline (two months from the date of receipt of the access to file DVD) to reply to the SO. I fixed new deadlines for the companies in question between 21 and 27 February 2006 in accordance with the pertinence of the reasons given to support their individual requests. |
| --- | --- |

—

The deadline for replying to the SO

Most of the addressees of the SO requested an extension of the deadline (two months from the date of receipt of the access to file DVD) to reply to the SO. I fixed new deadlines for the companies in question between 21 and 27 February 2006 in accordance with the pertinence of the reasons given to support their individual requests.

| — | The preparation of a single SO and the organisation of the Commission's file
  The relevant Commission service decided to send all companies implicated in the case a single SO that contained sections for all countries covered by the investigation regardless of whether the company in question was involved in the entirety of the respective countries or practices described. Furthermore, the Commission decided to grant all addressees of the SO access to the file concerning the entirety of these countries or practices (except for business secrets and other confidential information). The parties were given the opportunity to express their views to the Hearing Officer before access was given on this basis.
  United Technologies Corporation, Schindler, OTIS and ThyssenKrupp claimed that the Commission should have sent distinct and separate SOs to the addressees in accordance with their involvement in the different national cartels and should have organised the file differently, given that the Commission had alleged the existence of separate national infringements rather than the existence of a pan European cartel. They considered that companies which were only accused of having participated in the infringement in one country should only have access to the documents in the file relating to the country in question. Furthermore, they took the view that the addressees of the SO involved in a cartel in a different country had no legitimate interest in seeing all documents in the Commission's file. Other parties took a contrary view.
  In response, I considered that the relevant Commission service enjoys a certain margin of discretion in its decision jointly to investigate infringements that it considers to be related. I informed the parties that if there were objective reasons that had led the relevant Commission service to believe that a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the anticompetitive behaviour under investigation requires an exploration into different geographical markets at the same time, I was willing to accept this finding. Having examined carefully the manner in which the investigation had been carried out, the nature of the alleged infringements and the companies involved, it appeared to me that there were sufficient reasons to assume that the alleged infringements in the different markets in question were sufficiently linked to be subject of a common investigation. In particular, in the light of the specific factors involved, I considered the relevant Commission service had acted in an appropriate manner in maintaining a common investigation after reaching the provisional conclusion that the infringements at issue were four separate national cartels.
  Concerning access to file, I consider that EC Competition Law and the jurisprudence of the Community Courts ensure sufficiently the protection of the companies' sensitive information and assured the companies that any piece of information for which they could put forward that the disclosure would cause significant and serious harm would be afforded special protection throughout the administrative proceedings. This principle was respected in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

—

The preparation of a single SO and the organisation of the Commission's file

The relevant Commission service decided to send all companies implicated in the case a single SO that contained sections for all countries covered by the investigation regardless of whether the company in question was involved in the entirety of the respective countries or practices described. Furthermore, the Commission decided to grant all addressees of the SO access to the file concerning the entirety of these countries or practices (except for business secrets and other confidential information). The parties were given the opportunity to express their views to the Hearing Officer before access was given on this basis.

United Technologies Corporation, Schindler, OTIS and ThyssenKrupp claimed that the Commission should have sent distinct and separate SOs to the addressees in accordance with their involvement in the different national cartels and should have organised the file differently, given that the Commission had alleged the existence of separate national infringements rather than the existence of a pan European cartel. They considered that companies which were only accused of having participated in the infringement in one country should only have access to the documents in the file relating to the country in question. Furthermore, they took the view that the addressees of the SO involved in a cartel in a different country had no legitimate interest in seeing all documents in the Commission's file. Other parties took a contrary view.

In response, I considered that the relevant Commission service enjoys a certain margin of discretion in its decision jointly to investigate infringements that it considers to be related. I informed the parties that if there were objective reasons that had led the relevant Commission service to believe that a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the anticompetitive behaviour under investigation requires an exploration into different geographical markets at the same time, I was willing to accept this finding. Having examined carefully the manner in which the investigation had been carried out, the nature of the alleged infringements and the companies involved, it appeared to me that there were sufficient reasons to assume that the alleged infringements in the different markets in question were sufficiently linked to be subject of a common investigation. In particular, in the light of the specific factors involved, I considered the relevant Commission service had acted in an appropriate manner in maintaining a common investigation after reaching the provisional conclusion that the infringements at issue were four separate national cartels.

Concerning access to file, I consider that EC Competition Law and the jurisprudence of the Community Courts ensure sufficiently the protection of the companies' sensitive information and assured the companies that any piece of information for which they could put forward that the disclosure would cause significant and serious harm would be afforded special protection throughout the administrative proceedings. This principle was respected in the present case.

| — | Access to additional documents

  KONE requested access to additional documents, including, inter alia, a more comprehensive summary of the informant's submission to the Commission that had initiated the first inspections, and also an internal document of the Commission relating to the preparation of inspections in Germany. These documents were requested in order to prove that they should be granted full immunity under the Commission's Leniency Notice.
  With regard to the informant's submission, the Commission is under a strict obligation to protect the identity of its informers against the danger of retaliation (1). In particular, where powerful companies are investigated for alleged infringements of competition law, the Commission has the duty to protect whistleblowers from the harsh reactions they might have to face should their identity be revealed. Accordingly, whilst I was able to single out a few further passages that in my view could be disclosed to KONE without risk of endangering the informant's anonymity, and which were subsequently made available, I otherwise endorsed the decision taken by the relevant Commission service not to grant access to the whistleblower's submission in this case.
  With regard to the request for internal documents, according to the case law and the Commission's Notice on access to file, the Commission's internal documents are in principle inaccessible. I took the view that the mere allegation by a company that internal documents could be useful in the preparation of its defence cannot be sufficient to create an obligation on the part of the Commission to render these documents accessible. Otherwise, the rule of inaccessibility of such internal information would be reversed and the legitimate interest in keeping the Commission's internal deliberations secret seriously undermined. I consider that it is rather for the Commission services to verify themselves and, upon substantiated request, for the Hearing Officer to crosscheck, whether the Commission's internal documents contain factual evidence which could be indispensable for a party's defence. Upon verification, my view was that this was not the case in this particular instance. Accordingly, access was not granted. |
| --- | --- |

—

Access to additional documents

KONE requested access to additional documents, including, inter alia, a more comprehensive summary of the informant's submission to the Commission that had initiated the first inspections, and also an internal document of the Commission relating to the preparation of inspections in Germany. These documents were requested in order to prove that they should be granted full immunity under the Commission's Leniency Notice.

With regard to the informant's submission, the Commission is under a strict obligation to protect the identity of its informers against the danger of retaliation (1). In particular, where powerful companies are investigated for alleged infringements of competition law, the Commission has the duty to protect whistleblowers from the harsh reactions they might have to face should their identity be revealed. Accordingly, whilst I was able to single out a few further passages that in my view could be disclosed to KONE without risk of endangering the informant's anonymity, and which were subsequently made available, I otherwise endorsed the decision taken by the relevant Commission service not to grant access to the whistleblower's submission in this case.

With regard to the request for internal documents, according to the case law and the Commission's Notice on access to file, the Commission's internal documents are in principle inaccessible. I took the view that the mere allegation by a company that internal documents could be useful in the preparation of its defence cannot be sufficient to create an obligation on the part of the Commission to render these documents accessible. Otherwise, the rule of inaccessibility of such internal information would be reversed and the legitimate interest in keeping the Commission's internal deliberations secret seriously undermined. I consider that it is rather for the Commission services to verify themselves and, upon substantiated request, for the Hearing Officer to crosscheck, whether the Commission's internal documents contain factual evidence which could be indispensable for a party's defence. Upon verification, my view was that this was not the case in this particular instance. Accordingly, access was not granted.

The draft Decision

In the draft Decision the objections against two undertakings have been dropped. With regard to the other addressees of the SO, some minor calculation errors have been rectified without, however, modifying the start and end dates of the infringement (except for the case of OTIS in the Netherlands cartel where a later starting date was set).

The draft Decision submitted to the Commission only contains objections about which the parties have had the opportunity to state their views.

In the light of the above, I consider that the right of the parties to be heard has been fully respected in this case.

Brussels, 12 February 2007.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

(1)  Judgement of the Court of 7 November 1985 in Case 145/83, Stanley George Adams v Commission (ECR) 1985, p. 3539 and paragraph 19 of the Commission Notice of 13 December 2005 on the rules for access to the Commission file.

1

---

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/18

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 424th meeting on 16 February 2007 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators

(2008/C 75/09)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector, on the increase of the basic amount for ThyssenKrupp AG and it subsidiaries in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands due to an aggravating circumstance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector, on the increase of the basic amount for ThyssenKrupp AG and it subsidiaries in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands due to an aggravating circumstance.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, or rewarding cooperation outside its scope. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, or rewarding cooperation outside its scope.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/19

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 21 February 2007

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community

(Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators)

(notified under document number C(2007) 512 final)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(2008/C 75/10)

I.   SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENTS

Introduction

| 1. | The decision was addressed to KONE Belgium SA, KONE GmbH, KONE Luxembourg SARL, KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, KONE Corporation (hereinafter ‘KONE’), Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, NV OTIS SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, General Technic-Otis SARL, General Technic SARL, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, United Technologies Corporation (hereinafter ‘Otis’), Schindler SA/NV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, Schindler SARL, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Holding Ltd (hereinafter ‘Schindler’), ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp AG (hereinafter ‘ThyssenKrupp’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The decision was addressed to KONE Belgium SA, KONE GmbH, KONE Luxembourg SARL, KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, KONE Corporation (hereinafter ‘KONE’), Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, NV OTIS SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, General Technic-Otis SARL, General Technic SARL, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, United Technologies Corporation (hereinafter ‘Otis’), Schindler SA/NV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, Schindler SARL, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Holding Ltd (hereinafter ‘Schindler’), ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp AG (hereinafter ‘ThyssenKrupp’).

| 2. | The addressees participated in four separate but related single and continuous infringements of Article 81 of the Treaty in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands regarding elevators and escalators. Each of the four infringements covered the whole territory of one of these Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The addressees participated in four separate but related single and continuous infringements of Article 81 of the Treaty in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands regarding elevators and escalators. Each of the four infringements covered the whole territory of one of these Member States.

Procedure

| 3. | The Commission initiated the investigation on its own initiative (‘ex-officio’) in early 2004 using information brought to its attention. Three rounds of inspections (Belgium, and Germany: January 2004; Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg: March 2004 and the Netherlands: April 2004) and a large number of leniency applications under the 2002 Leniency Notice confirmed that cartels were run in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The infringements covered both new installations and services, except in Germany where the evidence would suggest that only new installations were covered. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission initiated the investigation on its own initiative (‘ex-officio’) in early 2004 using information brought to its attention. Three rounds of inspections (Belgium, and Germany: January 2004; Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg: March 2004 and the Netherlands: April 2004) and a large number of leniency applications under the 2002 Leniency Notice confirmed that cartels were run in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The infringements covered both new installations and services, except in Germany where the evidence would suggest that only new installations were covered.

| 4. | All four cartels displayed some common elements, such as, for instance:






  — | KONE, Otis, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp were all involved in the infringements in each of the four Member States, |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

All four cartels displayed some common elements, such as, for instance:

—

KONE, Otis, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp were all involved in the infringements in each of the four Member States,

| — | the cartels covered the same products and services in each Member State at issue, with the exception of Germany where — to the knowledge of the Commission — services were not directly part of the cartel agreements, |
| --- | --- |

—

the cartels covered the same products and services in each Member State at issue, with the exception of Germany where — to the knowledge of the Commission — services were not directly part of the cartel agreements,

| — | the managers responsible for the subsidiaries involved (and participants in the cartels) were sometimes simultaneously or successively responsible for several Member States, |
| --- | --- |

—

the managers responsible for the subsidiaries involved (and participants in the cartels) were sometimes simultaneously or successively responsible for several Member States,

| — | the time periods of infringement investigated by the Commission largely overlapped, even though they were not always of exactly the same overall duration, |
| --- | --- |

—

the time periods of infringement investigated by the Commission largely overlapped, even though they were not always of exactly the same overall duration,

| — | the method for the allocation of projects concerning the sale and installation of elevators and escalators was very similar, sometimes identical, in at least some if not all Member States concerned (regarding, for example, the principles governing market and customer sharing, the maintenance of ‘status quo’ in market shares, the structure of the meetings, compensation schemes, and use of project lists, etc.), |
| --- | --- |

—

the method for the allocation of projects concerning the sale and installation of elevators and escalators was very similar, sometimes identical, in at least some if not all Member States concerned (regarding, for example, the principles governing market and customer sharing, the maintenance of ‘status quo’ in market shares, the structure of the meetings, compensation schemes, and use of project lists, etc.),

| — | the method for the allocation of projects for the sale and installation of elevators and escalators through the use of so-called project lists was similar, if not identical, in all Member States concerned except the Netherlands where the Commission is not aware of any use of project lists, |
| --- | --- |

—

the method for the allocation of projects for the sale and installation of elevators and escalators through the use of so-called project lists was similar, if not identical, in all Member States concerned except the Netherlands where the Commission is not aware of any use of project lists,

| — | the method for the allocation of projects concerning maintenance and modernization was very similar, sometimes identical, in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (for example, the principles governing customer sharing, establishment and maintenance of contacts, communication methods between the undertakings and compensation schemes). |
| --- | --- |

—

the method for the allocation of projects concerning maintenance and modernization was very similar, sometimes identical, in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (for example, the principles governing customer sharing, establishment and maintenance of contacts, communication methods between the undertakings and compensation schemes).

| 5. | The Statement of Objections was notified to the parties in October 2005. The addressees of the Statement of Objections did not request an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Statement of Objections was notified to the parties in October 2005. The addressees of the Statement of Objections did not request an oral hearing.

Functioning of the cartels

| 6. | The periods of infringements retained in the decision are:






  — | from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004 in Belgium, |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

The periods of infringements retained in the decision are:

—

from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004 in Belgium,

| — | from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003 in Germany, |
| --- | --- |

—

from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003 in Germany,

| — | from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004 in Luxembourg, and |
| --- | --- |

—

from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004 in Luxembourg, and

| — | from 15 April 1998 to 5 March 2004 in the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

—

from 15 April 1998 to 5 March 2004 in the Netherlands.

| 7. | In particular, the following infringements were committed in one, several or all of the Member States concerned:






  — | agreeing to share elevator and escalator sales and installations, |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

In particular, the following infringements were committed in one, several or all of the Member States concerned:

—

agreeing to share elevator and escalator sales and installations,

| — | agreeing on the allocation of public and private tenders, as well as of other contracts, for the sale and installation of elevators and escalators in accordance with each undertaking's pre-agreed shares of sales, |
| --- | --- |

—

agreeing on the allocation of public and private tenders, as well as of other contracts, for the sale and installation of elevators and escalators in accordance with each undertaking's pre-agreed shares of sales,

| — | agreeing on the allocation of projects for the sale and installation of new elevators and/or escalators in accordance with the principle that existing customer relationships should be respected, |
| --- | --- |

—

agreeing on the allocation of projects for the sale and installation of new elevators and/or escalators in accordance with the principle that existing customer relationships should be respected,

| — | agreement not to compete with each other for maintenance contracts for elevators and escalators already in function and on how to bid for those contracts, |
| --- | --- |

—

agreement not to compete with each other for maintenance contracts for elevators and escalators already in function and on how to bid for those contracts,

| — | agreeing not to compete with each other for maintenance contracts for new elevators and escalators and agreeing on how to bid for those contracts, and |
| --- | --- |

—

agreeing not to compete with each other for maintenance contracts for new elevators and escalators and agreeing on how to bid for those contracts, and

| — | agreeing not to compete with each other for modernization contracts. |
| --- | --- |

—

agreeing not to compete with each other for modernization contracts.

The infringements' main features also included exchange of commercially important and confidential market and company (internal) information including bidding patterns and prices. The participants met regularly to agree to the above restrictions and they monitored their implementation within the national markets. There is evidence that the companies were aware that their behaviour was illegal and they took care to avoid detection; their employees usually met in bars and restaurants, they travelled to the countryside or even abroad, and they used pre-paid mobile phone cards to avoid tracking.

II.   FINES

Gravity

| 8. | Regarding the gravity of the infringements, impact on the market and their geographic scope, the infringements must be qualified as very serious. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Regarding the gravity of the infringements, impact on the market and their geographic scope, the infringements must be qualified as very serious.

Differential treatment

| 9. | The undertakings were divided into different categories according to their relative importance in the markets to account for the specific weight and therefore the real impact of each undertaking on the market. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The undertakings were divided into different categories according to their relative importance in the markets to account for the specific weight and therefore the real impact of each undertaking on the market.

| 10. | As the basis for comparing the relative importance of an undertaking in the market concerned, the Commission considered it appropriate to take the undertakings' Belgium-wide, Germany-wide, Luxembourg-wide and the Netherlands-wide turnovers, respectively. The comparison was made on the basis of these national-wide product turnovers in the last full year of the infringements: 2003 for all the undertakings concerned in respect of each of the four infringements, except for Schindler in Germany, for whom 2000 was the reference year, when it exited the cartel. |
| --- | --- |

10.

As the basis for comparing the relative importance of an undertaking in the market concerned, the Commission considered it appropriate to take the undertakings' Belgium-wide, Germany-wide, Luxembourg-wide and the Netherlands-wide turnovers, respectively. The comparison was made on the basis of these national-wide product turnovers in the last full year of the infringements: 2003 for all the undertakings concerned in respect of each of the four infringements, except for Schindler in Germany, for whom 2000 was the reference year, when it exited the cartel.

| 11. | As regards the infringement in Belgium, Schindler and KONE were jointly placed in a first, Otis in a second and ThyssenKrupp in a third category. As regards in infringement in Germany, KONE, Otis and ThyssenKrupp were placed in one category. Schindler, whose illegal behaviour was confined to escalators and who exited the cartel in 2000, was placed in a separate category. In respect of the infringement in Luxembourg, Otis and Schindler were jointly placed in a first category and Kone and ThyssenKrupp were jointly placed in a second category. Finally, as regards the infringement in the Netherlands, KONE was placed in a first, Otis in a second and Schindler in a third category. ThyssenKrupp and Mitsubishi were jointly placed in a fourth category. |
| --- | --- |

11.

As regards the infringement in Belgium, Schindler and KONE were jointly placed in a first, Otis in a second and ThyssenKrupp in a third category. As regards in infringement in Germany, KONE, Otis and ThyssenKrupp were placed in one category. Schindler, whose illegal behaviour was confined to escalators and who exited the cartel in 2000, was placed in a separate category. In respect of the infringement in Luxembourg, Otis and Schindler were jointly placed in a first category and Kone and ThyssenKrupp were jointly placed in a second category. Finally, as regards the infringement in the Netherlands, KONE was placed in a first, Otis in a second and Schindler in a third category. ThyssenKrupp and Mitsubishi were jointly placed in a fourth category.

Sufficient deterrence

| 12. | In order to set the amount of the fine at a level ensuring a sufficiently deterrent effect, the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fines imposed. |
| --- | --- |

12.

In order to set the amount of the fine at a level ensuring a sufficiently deterrent effect, the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fines imposed.

| 13. | With their respective worldwide turnovers, ThyssenKrupp and Otis are much larger players than the other addressees. Accordingly, and in compliance with previous Commission decisions, the Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the respective fines for ThyssenKrupp and Otis. |
| --- | --- |

13.

With their respective worldwide turnovers, ThyssenKrupp and Otis are much larger players than the other addressees. Accordingly, and in compliance with previous Commission decisions, the Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the respective fines for ThyssenKrupp and Otis.

Increase for duration

| 14. | Individual multiplying factors were also applied according to the duration of the infringements by each legal entity. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Individual multiplying factors were also applied according to the duration of the infringements by each legal entity.

Aggravating circumstances

| 15. | ThyssenKrupp was considered to have committed a repeated infringement, since two entities controlled by Krupp and/or Thyssen (before these two undertakings merged in 1999) had already been addressees of a previous Commission decision concerning cartel activities in Alloy Surcharge
   (1). The fact that the undertakings have repeated the same type of conduct in the same or in different business fields shows that the initial penalties did not prompt them to change their conduct. This constitutes an aggravating circumstance justifying an increase in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on ThyssenKrupp. |
| --- | --- |

15.

ThyssenKrupp was considered to have committed a repeated infringement, since two entities controlled by Krupp and/or Thyssen (before these two undertakings merged in 1999) had already been addressees of a previous Commission decision concerning cartel activities in Alloy Surcharge
   (1). The fact that the undertakings have repeated the same type of conduct in the same or in different business fields shows that the initial penalties did not prompt them to change their conduct. This constitutes an aggravating circumstance justifying an increase in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on ThyssenKrupp.

Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice

| 16. | KONE, Otis, ThyssenKrupp and Schindler submitted applications under the Leniency Notice. They co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation with a view to receiving favourable treatment under the Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

16.

KONE, Otis, ThyssenKrupp and Schindler submitted applications under the Leniency Notice. They co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation with a view to receiving favourable treatment under the Leniency Notice.

Point 8(a) — Immunity

| 17. | Otis was granted full immunity under point 8(a) of the Leniency Notice concerning a cartel in the Netherlands since it enabled the Commission to carry out inspections in the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Otis was granted full immunity under point 8(a) of the Leniency Notice concerning a cartel in the Netherlands since it enabled the Commission to carry out inspections in the Netherlands.

Point 8(b) — Immunity

| 18. | In respect of the infringements in Belgium and Luxembourg, KONE's submission enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Hence, KONE qualified for a full immunity from the fine in respect of the infringements in Belgium and Luxembourg. |
| --- | --- |

18.

In respect of the infringements in Belgium and Luxembourg, KONE's submission enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Hence, KONE qualified for a full immunity from the fine in respect of the infringements in Belgium and Luxembourg.

Point 23(b), first indent (reduction of 30-50 %)

| 19. | The evidence submitted by Otis relating to the cartels in Belgium and Luxembourg represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement. Otis was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 40 % reduction of the fine for both infringements. Similarly, KONE's submission in relation to the cartel in Germany, as well as ThyssenKrupp's submission in relation to the cartel in the Netherlands, represented significant added value within the meaning of the Leniency Notice. These two undertakings were first to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice in relation to the respective cartels, and the Commission granted KONE a 50 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Germany and ThyssenKrupp a 40 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

19.

The evidence submitted by Otis relating to the cartels in Belgium and Luxembourg represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement. Otis was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 40 % reduction of the fine for both infringements. Similarly, KONE's submission in relation to the cartel in Germany, as well as ThyssenKrupp's submission in relation to the cartel in the Netherlands, represented significant added value within the meaning of the Leniency Notice. These two undertakings were first to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice in relation to the respective cartels, and the Commission granted KONE a 50 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Germany and ThyssenKrupp a 40 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in the Netherlands.

Point 23(b), second indent (reduction of 20-30 %)

| 20. | The evidence submitted by Otis relating to the cartel in Germany represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement in Germany. Otis was the second undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 25 % reduction of the fine for the infringement in Germany. Similarly, in respect of the infringement in Belgium, ThyssenKrupp's submission represented a significant added value within the meaning of the Leniency Notice. ThyssenKrupp was second to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 20 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Belgium. |
| --- | --- |

20.

The evidence submitted by Otis relating to the cartel in Germany represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement in Germany. Otis was the second undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 25 % reduction of the fine for the infringement in Germany. Similarly, in respect of the infringement in Belgium, ThyssenKrupp's submission represented a significant added value within the meaning of the Leniency Notice. ThyssenKrupp was second to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 20 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Belgium.

Point 23(b), third indent (reduction of up to 20 %)

| 21. | The evidence submitted by Schindler relating to the cartel in Germany represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement in Germany. Schindler was the third undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 15 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

21.

The evidence submitted by Schindler relating to the cartel in Germany represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement in Germany. Schindler was the third undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 15 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Germany.

III.   DECISION

| 22. | The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by allocating tenders and other contracts among them in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, with a view to sharing markets and fixing prices, agreeing on a compensation mechanism in some cases, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, and, participating in regular meetings and other contacts to agree and implement the above restrictions:

  In Belgium:







  (a) | Kone Corporation and KONE Belgium SA, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004; |
| --- | --- | --- |

22.

The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by allocating tenders and other contracts among them in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, with a view to sharing markets and fixing prices, agreeing on a compensation mechanism in some cases, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, and, participating in regular meetings and other contacts to agree and implement the above restrictions:

In Belgium:

(a)

Kone Corporation and KONE Belgium SA, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004;

| (b) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and NV OTIS SA, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and NV OTIS SA, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004;

| (c) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SA/NV, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SA/NV, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004; and

| (d) | ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, from 9 May 1996 to 29 January 2004.

In Germany:

| (e) | Kone Corporation and KONE GmbH, from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Kone Corporation and KONE GmbH, from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003;

| (f) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003;

| (g) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, from 1 August 1995 to 6 December 2000; and |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, from 1 August 1995 to 6 December 2000; and

| (h) | ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, from 1 August 1995 to 5 December 2003.

In Luxembourg:

| (i) | Kone Corporation and KONE Luxembourg SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 29 January 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Kone Corporation and KONE Luxembourg SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 29 January 2004;

| (j) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company, NV Otis SA, General Technic-Otis SARL and General Technic SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company, NV Otis SA, General Technic-Otis SARL and General Technic SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004;

| (k) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004; and |
| --- | --- |

(k)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004; and

| (l) | ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(l)

ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, from 7 December 1995 to 9 March 2004.

In the Netherlands:

| (m) | Kone Corporation and KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, from 1 June 1999 to 5 March 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(m)

Kone Corporation and KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, from 1 June 1999 to 5 March 2004;

| (n) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis BV, from 15 April 1998 to 5 March 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(n)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis BV, from 15 April 1998 to 5 March 2004;

| (o) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Liften BV, from 1 June 1999 to 5 March 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(o)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Liften BV, from 1 June 1999 to 5 March 2004;

| (p) | ThyssenKrupp AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, from 15 April 1998 to 5 March 2004; and |
| --- | --- |

(p)

ThyssenKrupp AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, from 15 April 1998 to 5 March 2004; and

| (q) | Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, from 11 January 2000 to 5 March 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(q)

Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, from 11 January 2000 to 5 March 2004.

| 23. | For the infringements referred to in the previous recital, the following fines were imposed:

  In Belgium:







  (a) | Kone Corporation and KONE Belgium SA, jointly and severally: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- | --- |

23.

For the infringements referred to in the previous recital, the following fines were imposed:

In Belgium:

(a)

Kone Corporation and KONE Belgium SA, jointly and severally: EUR 0;

| (b) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and NV OTIS SA, jointly and severally: EUR 47 713 050; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and NV OTIS SA, jointly and severally: EUR 47 713 050;

| (c) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SA/NV, jointly and severally: EUR 69 300 000; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SA/NV, jointly and severally: EUR 69 300 000; and

| (d) | ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, jointly and severally: EUR 68 607 000. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, jointly and severally: EUR 68 607 000.

In Germany:

| (e) | Kone Corporation and KONE GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 62 370 000; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Kone Corporation and KONE GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 62 370 000;

| (f) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, jointly and severally: EUR 159 043 500; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, jointly and severally: EUR 159 043 500;

| (g) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 21 458 250; and |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 21 458 250; and

| (h) | ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 374 220 000. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, jointly and severally: EUR 374 220 000.

In Luxembourg:

| (i) | Kone Corporation and KONE Luxembourg SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Kone Corporation and KONE Luxembourg SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 0;

| (j) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company, NV Otis SA, General Technic-Otis SARL and General Technic SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 18 176 400; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company, NV Otis SA, General Technic-Otis SARL and General Technic SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 18 176 400;

| (k) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 17 820 000; and |
| --- | --- |

(k)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 17 820 000; and

| (l) | ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 13 365 000. |
| --- | --- |

(l)

ThyssenKrupp AG, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, jointly and severally: EUR 13 365 000.

In the Netherlands:

| (m) | Kone Corporation Ltd and KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, jointly and severally: EUR 79 750 000; |
| --- | --- |

(m)

Kone Corporation Ltd and KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, jointly and severally: EUR 79 750 000;

| (n) | United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis BV, jointly and severally: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(n)

United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Company and Otis BV, jointly and severally: EUR 0;

| (o) | Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Liften BV, jointly and severally: EUR 35 169 750; |
| --- | --- |

(o)

Schindler Holding Ltd and Schindler Liften BV, jointly and severally: EUR 35 169 750;

| (p) | ThyssenKrupp AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, jointly and severally: EUR 23 477 850; and |
| --- | --- |

(p)

ThyssenKrupp AG and ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, jointly and severally: EUR 23 477 850; and

| (q) | Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV: EUR 1 841 400. |
| --- | --- |

(q)

Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV: EUR 1 841 400.

| 24. | The undertakings listed in the previous recital shall immediately bring their infringement to an end, insofar as they have not already done so. They shall refrain from repeating any act or conduct as the infringement found in this case, and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

24.

The undertakings listed in the previous recital shall immediately bring their infringement to an end, insofar as they have not already done so. They shall refrain from repeating any act or conduct as the infringement found in this case, and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect.

---

(1)  See Joined Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98, ThyssenKrupp Stainless and ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni v Commission (‘Alloy Surcharge’), [2001] ECR II 3757, and Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P, ThyssenKrupp Stainless and ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni v Commission, judgment of 14 July 2005.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

Commission

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/25

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2008/C 75/11)

| 1. | The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (1).

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), J-79 4/23, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3). |
| --- | --- |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3).

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Footwear with uppers of leather | People's Republic of China
  Vietnam | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1) | 7.10.2008 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Footwear with uppers of leather

People's Republic of China

Vietnam

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1)

7.10.2008

---

(1)  OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1.

(2)  Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

(3)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

---

26.3.2008

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/s3

---

NOTICE

On 26 March 2008, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Second supplement to the 26th complete edition’ will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 75 A.

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain free of charge the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see: http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---