# Official Journal C 2/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 2 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 605 January 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 2

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 605 January 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 2/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8291 — PSA/Aramis) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 2/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8291 — PSA/Aramis) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 2/02 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 January 2017 — Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 2/02

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,00 % on 1 January 2017 — Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2017/C 2/03 | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-5/15 — Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet (Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment) | 3 |
| 2017/C 2/04 | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-13/15 — Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung (Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment) | 4 |
| 2017/C 2/05 | Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-18/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships) | 4 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 2/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2017/C 2/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2017/C 2/03

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-5/15 — Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet (Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment)

(Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment)

3

2017/C 2/04

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-13/15 — Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung (Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment)

(Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment)

4

2017/C 2/05

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2015 in Case E-18/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships)

v

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships)

4

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 2/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

2017/C 2/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8291 — PSA/Aramis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 2/01)

On 20 December 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8291. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

0,00 % on 1 January 2017

Euro exchange rates (2)

4 January 2017

(2017/C 2/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0437 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4343 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84945 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5238 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0707 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,9905 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,35 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3778 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5086 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,7387 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4373 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3894 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,0948 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5024 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5047 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 251,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2409 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2382 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5738 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 969,26 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6940 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,811 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 63,4078 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,375 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3784 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,0709 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,0390 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0437

JPY

Japanese yen

122,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4343

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84945

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5238

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0707

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,9905

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,35

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3778

RON

Romanian leu

4,5086

TRY

Turkish lira

3,7387

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4373

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3894

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,0948

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5024

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5047

KRW

South Korean won

1 251,90

ZAR

South African rand

14,2409

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2382

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5738

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 969,26

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6940

PHP

Philippine peso

51,811

RUB

Russian rouble

63,4078

THB

Thai baht

37,375

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3784

MXN

Mexican peso

22,0709

INR

Indian rupee

71,0390

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

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

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 December 2015

in Case E-5/15

Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet

(Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment)

(2017/C 2/03)

In Case E-5/15, Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Eidsivating Court of Appeal (Eidsivating lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 6 and Article 22(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | A working time amounting to an average of 84 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement is compatible with Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC, in circumstances governed by Article 22(1)(a), provided that the worker has explicitly, freely and individually agreed to perform such work, and the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of the worker are observed. This entails that where an EEA State makes use of the option provided for in Article 22(1) of the Directive, the national legislature must take due account of the physical and mental well-being of workers. However, such a working time arrangement is only compatible with Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive if the conditions for the application of the derogation in Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 17(3)(c)(i), are fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A working time amounting to an average of 84 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement is compatible with Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC, in circumstances governed by Article 22(1)(a), provided that the worker has explicitly, freely and individually agreed to perform such work, and the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of the worker are observed. This entails that where an EEA State makes use of the option provided for in Article 22(1) of the Directive, the national legislature must take due account of the physical and mental well-being of workers. However, such a working time arrangement is only compatible with Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive if the conditions for the application of the derogation in Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 17(3)(c)(i), are fulfilled.

| 2. | A provision of national law, according to which a worker's consent to work more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, is compatible with Articles 6 and 22 of the Directive, provided that the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers are observed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A provision of national law, according to which a worker's consent to work more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, is compatible with Articles 6 and 22 of the Directive, provided that the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers are observed.

| 3. | A notice of dismissal and offer of re-engagement on new terms, following a refusal by a worker to agree to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, is not to be considered a detriment within the meaning of Article 22(1)(b) of the Directive if the termination of the employment is based upon reasons that are fully independent of the worker's refusal to agree to perform such additional work. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A notice of dismissal and offer of re-engagement on new terms, following a refusal by a worker to agree to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, is not to be considered a detriment within the meaning of Article 22(1)(b) of the Directive if the termination of the employment is based upon reasons that are fully independent of the worker's refusal to agree to perform such additional work.

---

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 December 2015

in Case E-13/15

Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung

(Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment)

(2017/C 2/04)

In Case E-13/15, Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 does not prevent a recipient or claimant of benefits from challenging the findings of an institution of the place of stay or residence made under the said provision in an administrative procedure before a debtor institution.

---

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 December 2015

in Case E-18/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships)

(2017/C 2/05)

APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 2/06)

| 1. | On 19 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Hellas Acquisition Luxco SÀRL (‘Centerbridge’, Luxembourg) controlled by Centerbridge Partners, L.P. (‘Centerbridge Partners’, USA) and Alpha Bank A.E. (‘Alpha Bank’, Greece) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Kaican Services Limited (‘Kaican’, UK) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 19 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Hellas Acquisition Luxco SÀRL (‘Centerbridge’, Luxembourg) controlled by Centerbridge Partners, L.P. (‘Centerbridge Partners’, USA) and Alpha Bank A.E. (‘Alpha Bank’, Greece) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Kaican Services Limited (‘Kaican’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   Centerbridge: is managed by affiliates of Centerbridge Partners which is an investment management firm with offices in New York and London focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities.
  —   Alpha Bank: provision of financial products and services, retail, corporate, investment and private banking services, asset management, the distribution of insurance products, brokerage and real estate management in Greece Cyprus, Romania, Serbia, Albania and the UK.
  —   Kaican: a coordinator of debt management services, including collection services for both mortgage debt and consumer non-performing loans, management information system services, and recoveries. Kaican’s primary activities relate to the coordination of Greek management service providers on behalf of two Irish securitisation vehicles that hold Greek-based non-performing loan portfolios. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   Centerbridge: is managed by affiliates of Centerbridge Partners which is an investment management firm with offices in New York and London focused on private equity and distressed investment opportunities.

—   Alpha Bank: provision of financial products and services, retail, corporate, investment and private banking services, asset management, the distribution of insurance products, brokerage and real estate management in Greece Cyprus, Romania, Serbia, Albania and the UK.

—   Kaican: a coordinator of debt management services, including collection services for both mortgage debt and consumer non-performing loans, management information system services, and recoveries. Kaican’s primary activities relate to the coordination of Greek management service providers on behalf of two Irish securitisation vehicles that hold Greek-based non-performing loan portfolios.

| 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 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 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.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican) 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.8321 — Centerbridge/Alpha Bank/Kaican) 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.

---

| 5.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 2/07)

| 1. | On 21 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Riverstone Investment Group LLC (‘Riverstone’, United States) and AMCI worldwide holdings (‘AMCI’, United States) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of Fitzroy QLD Resources Limited (‘Fitzroy’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 December 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Riverstone Investment Group LLC (‘Riverstone’, United States) and AMCI worldwide holdings (‘AMCI’, United States) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of Fitzroy QLD Resources Limited (‘Fitzroy’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | Riverstone is a private equity firm focused on investments in the energy and power sectors. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Riverstone is a private equity firm focused on investments in the energy and power sectors.

| — | AMCI is a privately held natural resources company, with operations across the value chain of energy and metal commodities with investments in coals and minerals, metals, and shipping. |
| --- | --- |

—

AMCI is a privately held natural resources company, with operations across the value chain of energy and metal commodities with investments in coals and minerals, metals, and shipping.

| — | Fitzroy is a producer of coking coal for seaborne export worldwide. All of Fitzroy’s operations and assets are in Australia. Fitzroy is currently 100 % owned by AMCI. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fitzroy is a producer of coking coal for seaborne export worldwide. All of Fitzroy’s operations and assets are in Australia. Fitzroy is currently 100 % owned by AMCI.

| 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 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 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.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy, 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.8340 — Riverstone/AMCI/Fitzroy, 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.

---