# Official Journal C 327/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 327 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 596 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 327

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 596 September 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 327/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2016/C 327/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 27 June 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping — Rapporteur: The Netherlands | 2 |
| 2016/C 327/03 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Container Shipping (AT.39850) | 3 |
| 2016/C 327/04 | Summary of Commission Decision of 7 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping) (notified under document C(2016) 4215) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 327/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2016/C 327/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 27 June 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping — Rapporteur: The Netherlands

2

2016/C 327/03

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Container Shipping (AT.39850)

3

2016/C 327/04

Summary of Commission Decision of 7 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping) (notified under document C(2016) 4215)

(notified under document C(2016) 4215)

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 327/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 327/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 6.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 September 2016

(2016/C 327/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1156 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 115,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4407 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83643 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5478 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0925 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2458 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,33 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3541 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4495 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2872 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4696 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4436 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6517 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5252 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5135 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 234,36 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,0116 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4496 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5010 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 658,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5472 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,907 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,4024 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,711 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6258 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,6487 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,1400 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1156

JPY

Japanese yen

115,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4407

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83643

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5478

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0925

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2458

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,33

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3541

RON

Romanian leu

4,4495

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2872

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4696

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4436

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6517

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5252

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5135

KRW

South Korean won

1 234,36

ZAR

South African rand

16,0116

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4496

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5010

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 658,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5472

PHP

Philippine peso

51,907

RUB

Russian rouble

72,4024

THB

Thai baht

38,711

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6258

MXN

Mexican peso

20,6487

INR

Indian rupee

74,1400

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 6.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 27 June 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping

Rapporteur: The Netherlands

(2016/C 327/02)

| (1) | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 27 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 27 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning the parties can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning the parties can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A minority abstains.

| (3) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the parties are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on the parties. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the parties are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on the parties. A minority abstains.

| (4) | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by the parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against the parties, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by the parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against the parties, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains.

| (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.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

---

| 6.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/3

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Container Shipping

(AT.39850)

(2016/C 327/03)

| (1) | This case concerns a practice whereby the addressees (‘the Parties’) (2) of the draft decision have been publicly announcing their intended future increases of container liner shipping prices on different channels. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

This case concerns a practice whereby the addressees (‘the Parties’) (2) of the draft decision have been publicly announcing their intended future increases of container liner shipping prices on different channels.

| (2) | On 21 November 2013 and on 13 November 2015, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) initiated proceedings against the Parties within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (4). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 21 November 2013 and on 13 November 2015, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) initiated proceedings against the Parties within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (4).

| (3) | On 26 November 2015, the Commission adopted a Preliminary Assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, expressing its concern that the Parties' practice of publicly announcing their intended price increases may allow them to exchange information on the future pricing intentions and thus may have the object of restricting competition on the market for container shipping transport services on routes to and from the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), in violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 26 November 2015, the Commission adopted a Preliminary Assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, expressing its concern that the Parties' practice of publicly announcing their intended price increases may allow them to exchange information on the future pricing intentions and thus may have the object of restricting competition on the market for container shipping transport services on routes to and from the European Economic Area (‘EEA’), in violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (4) | Between 21 December 2015 and 12 February 2016 the Parties submitted commitments to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment of 26 November 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Between 21 December 2015 and 12 February 2016 the Parties submitted commitments to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment of 26 November 2015.

| (5) | On 16 February 2016 the Commission published a Communication in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the commitments submitted by the Parties, and inviting interested third parties to submit observations within one month of this publication (5). A total of 4 substantive responses were received. The Commission considered that the responses did not give rise to new concerns. In view of the market test, the Commission maintained its position that the commitments are adequate to address its competition concerns, as expressed in the Preliminary Assessment. The Parties were informed thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 16 February 2016 the Commission published a Communication in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the commitments submitted by the Parties, and inviting interested third parties to submit observations within one month of this publication (5). A total of 4 substantive responses were received. The Commission considered that the responses did not give rise to new concerns. In view of the market test, the Commission maintained its position that the commitments are adequate to address its competition concerns, as expressed in the Preliminary Assessment. The Parties were informed thereof.

| (6) | The draft decision makes the commitments binding upon the Parties, and concludes that in light of these, there are no longer grounds for action on its part, and thus the proceedings in this case should be brought to an end. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The draft decision makes the commitments binding upon the Parties, and concludes that in light of these, there are no longer grounds for action on its part, and thus the proceedings in this case should be brought to an end.

| (7) | I have not received any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings with respect to the submitted commitments (6). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

I have not received any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings with respect to the submitted commitments (6).

| (8) | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

| (9) | In conclusion, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights has been respected in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In conclusion, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 28 June 2016.

Joos STRAGIER

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Mentioned in Article 3 of the Decision.

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

3

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

4

(5)  OJ C 60, 16.2.2016, p. 7.

5

(6)  According to Article 15(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, parties to the proceedings offering commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage of the procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights.

6

---

| 6.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/4

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 7 July 2016

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping)

(notified under document C(2016) 4215)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2016/C 327/04)

On 7 July 2016, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1)
  , the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. The decision is published in full in English on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The decision makes legally binding the commitments offered by 14 container liner shipping undertakings (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Parties’): Maersk (Denmark), MSC (Switzerland), CMA CGM (France), Hapag-Lloyd (Germany), Hamburg Süd (Germany), COSCO (China), OOCL (Hong Kong), Evergreen (Taiwan), Hanjin (South Korea), Hyundai Merchant Marine (South Korea), MOL (Japan), NYK (Japan), UASC (United Arab Emirates) and ZIM (Israel). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The decision makes legally binding the commitments offered by 14 container liner shipping undertakings (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Parties’): Maersk (Denmark), MSC (Switzerland), CMA CGM (France), Hapag-Lloyd (Germany), Hamburg Süd (Germany), COSCO (China), OOCL (Hong Kong), Evergreen (Taiwan), Hanjin (South Korea), Hyundai Merchant Marine (South Korea), MOL (Japan), NYK (Japan), UASC (United Arab Emirates) and ZIM (Israel).

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (2) | By decisions of 21 November 2013 and 13 November 2015 the Commission initiated proceedings against the Parties. On 26 November 2015 the Commission adopted the Preliminary Assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 which set out the Commission's competition concerns. The Preliminary Assessment was notified to the Parties on 26 November 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By decisions of 21 November 2013 and 13 November 2015 the Commission initiated proceedings against the Parties. On 26 November 2015 the Commission adopted the Preliminary Assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 which set out the Commission's competition concerns. The Preliminary Assessment was notified to the Parties on 26 November 2015.

| (3) | Between 21 December 2015 and 12 February 2016 the Parties submitted commitments to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment (‘Commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Between 21 December 2015 and 12 February 2016 the Parties submitted commitments to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment (‘Commitments’).

| (4) | On 16 February 2016 a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the Commitments and inviting interested third parties to give their observations on the Commitments within one month following publication (‘the Article 27(4) Notice’). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 16 February 2016 a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the Commitments and inviting interested third parties to give their observations on the Commitments within one month following publication (‘the Article 27(4) Notice’).

| (5) | On 27 June 2016 the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted and gave its positive opinion. On 28 June 2016 the Hearing Officer issued his final report. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 27 June 2016 the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted and gave its positive opinion. On 28 June 2016 the Hearing Officer issued his final report.

2.2.   The practice subject to the proceedings

| (6) | The Parties have regularly announced their intended (future) increases of prices for deep-sea container liner shipping services, at least on routes from Far East Asia to Northern Europe and the Mediterranean (westbound), on their websites, via the press, or in other ways. These announcements indicate the amount of the increase in US-Dollars per transported container unit (twenty-foot equivalent unit, ‘TEU’), the affected trade route and the date of implementation. Such announcements are widely known in the industry as ‘General Rate Increase Announcements’ or ‘GRI Announcements’. They generally concern sizable rate increases of several hundred US-Dollars per TEU. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Parties have regularly announced their intended (future) increases of prices for deep-sea container liner shipping services, at least on routes from Far East Asia to Northern Europe and the Mediterranean (westbound), on their websites, via the press, or in other ways. These announcements indicate the amount of the increase in US-Dollars per transported container unit (twenty-foot equivalent unit, ‘TEU’), the affected trade route and the date of implementation. Such announcements are widely known in the industry as ‘General Rate Increase Announcements’ or ‘GRI Announcements’. They generally concern sizable rate increases of several hundred US-Dollars per TEU.

| (7) | GRI Announcements were made typically 3 to 5 weeks before their intended implementation date, and during that time some or all Parties announced similar intended rate increases for the same or similar routes and the same or similar implementation date. Announced GRIs have sometimes been postponed or modified by some of the Parties, possibly aligning them with the GRIs announced by other Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

GRI Announcements were made typically 3 to 5 weeks before their intended implementation date, and during that time some or all Parties announced similar intended rate increases for the same or similar routes and the same or similar implementation date. Announced GRIs have sometimes been postponed or modified by some of the Parties, possibly aligning them with the GRIs announced by other Parties.

| (8) | In the Preliminary Assessment of 26 November 2015, the Commission expressed the concern that GRI Announcements may be of little value for customers: stating only the amount of an intended increase may not inform customers of the new full price they will be asked to pay in the future. In addition, GRI Announcements may have only limited committal value and thus, customers may not be able to rely on them for their purchasing decisions. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In the Preliminary Assessment of 26 November 2015, the Commission expressed the concern that GRI Announcements may be of little value for customers: stating only the amount of an intended increase may not inform customers of the new full price they will be asked to pay in the future. In addition, GRI Announcements may have only limited committal value and thus, customers may not be able to rely on them for their purchasing decisions.

| (9) | The Commission further expressed the concern that this practice may allow the Parties to explore each other's pricing intentions and to coordinate their behaviour. This practice may have enabled the Parties to ‘test’, without incurring the risk of losing customers, whether they could reasonably have implemented a price increase and thereby may have reduced strategic uncertainty for the Parties and diminished the incentives to compete. The Commission was concerned that this conduct may have amounted to a concerted practice in violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Commission further expressed the concern that this practice may allow the Parties to explore each other's pricing intentions and to coordinate their behaviour. This practice may have enabled the Parties to ‘test’, without incurring the risk of losing customers, whether they could reasonably have implemented a price increase and thereby may have reduced strategic uncertainty for the Parties and diminished the incentives to compete. The Commission was concerned that this conduct may have amounted to a concerted practice in violation of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.3.   The commitments offered

| (10) | The Parties have offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to meet the Commission's competition concerns in relation to the abovementioned practice. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Parties have offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to meet the Commission's competition concerns in relation to the abovementioned practice.

| (11) | The Parties offered to stop publishing and communicating GRI announcements, i.e. changes to prices expressed solely as the amount or percentage of the change. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Parties offered to stop publishing and communicating GRI announcements, i.e. changes to prices expressed solely as the amount or percentage of the change.

| (12) | The Parties will not be obliged to publish or communicate (hereinafter referred to as ‘announce’) their prices, but should they choose to do so, the announcements must enable purchasers to understand and rely on them. For that purpose the parties offered that price announcements will contain at least the following information:






  (a) | the amount of the base rate, bunker charges (‘BAF’), security charges, terminal handling charges (‘THC’) and peak season charges (‘PSS’, or similar charges); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(12)

The Parties will not be obliged to publish or communicate (hereinafter referred to as ‘announce’) their prices, but should they choose to do so, the announcements must enable purchasers to understand and rely on them. For that purpose the parties offered that price announcements will contain at least the following information:

(a)

the amount of the base rate, bunker charges (‘BAF’), security charges, terminal handling charges (‘THC’) and peak season charges (‘PSS’, or similar charges);

| (b) | which other charges may apply; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

which other charges may apply;

| (c) | the services to which they apply; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the services to which they apply;

| (d) | the period to which they relate (which can be either expressed as a fixed period or open ended, in which case prices are valid until further notice). |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the period to which they relate (which can be either expressed as a fixed period or open ended, in which case prices are valid until further notice).

Announcements will not be made more than 31 days before implementation day.

| (13) | The Parties shall be bound by their price announcements during their validity period as maximum prices, but will be free to offer lower prices. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Parties shall be bound by their price announcements during their validity period as maximum prices, but will be free to offer lower prices.

| (14) | In order to facilitate the conduct of business, the Parties include two exceptions to the commitments in situations that would be unlikely to give rise to the Commission's competition concerns. The commitments will not apply to:






  (a) | communications with purchasers who on that date have a rate agreement in force on the route to which the communication refers; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(14)

In order to facilitate the conduct of business, the Parties include two exceptions to the commitments in situations that would be unlikely to give rise to the Commission's competition concerns. The commitments will not apply to:

(a)

communications with purchasers who on that date have a rate agreement in force on the route to which the communication refers;

| (b) | communications during bilateral negotiations or communications tailored to the needs of identified purchasers. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

communications during bilateral negotiations or communications tailored to the needs of identified purchasers.

The Parties shall however remain bound by the maximum prices set out in relevant price announcements that are applicable to the same services and customers referred to in the communications, under the conditions set out in the commitments.

| (15) | The commitments will apply for 3 years to all routes to and from the EEA, starting five month after the adoption of the Commission commitment decision. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The commitments will apply for 3 years to all routes to and from the EEA, starting five month after the adoption of the Commission commitment decision.

| (16) | The commitments will not prevent the Parties from complying with requirements based on laws or regulations of other jurisdictions. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The commitments will not prevent the Parties from complying with requirements based on laws or regulations of other jurisdictions.

2.4.   The market test

| (17) | In accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission published a market test notice along with the proposed commitments on 16 February 2016, inviting interested third parties to comment. Overall, the observations received did not identify new competition concerns and contained no points to reconsider the substance of the draft commitments offered by the carriers. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

In accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission published a market test notice along with the proposed commitments on 16 February 2016, inviting interested third parties to comment. Overall, the observations received did not identify new competition concerns and contained no points to reconsider the substance of the draft commitments offered by the carriers.

2.5.   Assessment and proportionality of the proposed commitments

| (18) | The commitments in their final form are sufficient to address the concerns identified by the Commission in its Preliminary Assessment without being disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The commitments in their final form are sufficient to address the concerns identified by the Commission in its Preliminary Assessment without being disproportionate.

| (19) | Timely, transparent and committal price announcements would allow customers to make informed purchasing decisions and make it difficult for the Parties to collude on prices. Although more transparent price announcements would by nature mean more transparency to both the Parties and customers, informed customers would be in a position to exert pressure on the Parties making collusion difficult and risky. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Timely, transparent and committal price announcements would allow customers to make informed purchasing decisions and make it difficult for the Parties to collude on prices. Although more transparent price announcements would by nature mean more transparency to both the Parties and customers, informed customers would be in a position to exert pressure on the Parties making collusion difficult and risky.

| (20) | The commitments are only limited to the way in which prices are announced and do not interfere with the Parties' commercial discretion whether to make price announcements and how to set their prices. Because these commitments bring a major change in the way the sector as a whole may announce prices it was appropriate to limit their duration to three years in order to examine their effect on the market. The commitments are therefore proportionate. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The commitments are only limited to the way in which prices are announced and do not interfere with the Parties' commercial discretion whether to make price announcements and how to set their prices. Because these commitments bring a major change in the way the sector as a whole may announce prices it was appropriate to limit their duration to three years in order to examine their effect on the market. The commitments are therefore proportionate.

3.   CONCLUSIONS

| (21) | The decision makes the commitments proposed by the carriers legally binding upon them. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The decision makes the commitments proposed by the carriers legally binding upon them.

| (22) | In light of the final commitments offered by the Carriers, the Commission considers that there are no longer grounds for action on its parts. The Decision shall be binding from 7 December 2016 until 7 December 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

In light of the final commitments offered by the Carriers, the Commission considers that there are no longer grounds for action on its parts. The Decision shall be binding from 7 December 2016 until 7 December 2019.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 6.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 327/05)

| 1. | On 30 August 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking RP Group BV (‘RP’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 August 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking RP Group BV (‘RP’, The Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   for PAI: private equity company that manages and advises a number of funds that own companies active in a variety of business sectors, such as outdoor equipment, fashion, call centres and budget hotels;
  —   for RP: active in the holiday parks industry. RP manages and operates holiday parks in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany under the ‘Roompot’ brand. RP is also active in park development, park refurbishment and tour operating. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for PAI: private equity company that manages and advises a number of funds that own companies active in a variety of business sectors, such as outdoor equipment, fashion, call centres and budget hotels;

—   for RP: active in the holiday parks industry. RP manages and operates holiday parks in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany under the ‘Roompot’ brand. RP is also active in park development, park refurbishment and tour operating.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8182 — PAI Partners/RP Group, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---