# Official Journal C 344/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 344 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 572 October 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 344

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 572 October 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 344/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7304 — Danone/ID Logistics/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2014/C 344/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7384 — Helvetia/Nationale Suisse) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 344/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7304 — Danone/ID Logistics/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2014/C 344/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7384 — Helvetia/Nationale Suisse) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 344/03 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,05 % on 1 October 2014 — Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2014/C 344/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard-essential patents — Rapporteur: Bulgaria | 3 |
| 2014/C 344/05 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents (AT.39985) | 4 |
| 2014/C 344/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 29 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents) (notified under document number C(2014) 2892 final) | 6 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2014/C 344/07 | Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1 j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty) (General block exemption regulation) | 9 |
| 2014/C 344/08 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 13 |
| 2014/C 344/09 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 14 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 344/03

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,05 % on 1 October 2014 — Euro exchange rates

2

2014/C 344/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard-essential patents — Rapporteur: Bulgaria

3

2014/C 344/05

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents (AT.39985)

4

2014/C 344/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 29 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents) (notified under document number C(2014) 2892 final)

(notified under document number C(2014) 2892 final)

6

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2014/C 344/07

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1 j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty) (General block exemption regulation)

9

2014/C 344/08

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

13

2014/C 344/09

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

14

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 344/10 | Call for proposals 2015 — EAC/A04/2014 — Erasmus+ Programme | 15 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2014/C 344/10

Call for proposals 2015 — EAC/A04/2014 — Erasmus+ Programme

15

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 344/11 | Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency for the financial year 2013 — amending budget No 2 (OJ C 58, 28.2.2014) | 18 |

Corrigenda

2014/C 344/11

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency for the financial year 2013 — amending budget No 2 (OJ C 58, 28.2.2014)

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (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

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7304 — Danone/ID Logistics/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 344/01

On 24 September 2014, 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 language 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 32014M7304. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7304. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7384 — Helvetia/Nationale Suisse)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 344/02

On 25 September 2014, 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 German language 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 32014M7384. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7384. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/2

---

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

0,05 % on 1 October 2014

Euro exchange rates (2)

1 October 2014

2014/C 344/03

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2603 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4437 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77820 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0932 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2072 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1420 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,502 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1815 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4093 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8842 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4496 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4139 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7838 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6171 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6085 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 342,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2188 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7382 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6425 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 308,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1199 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,557 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 49,9202 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,940 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0971 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9372 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,7857 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2603

JPY

Japanese yen

138,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4437

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77820

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0932

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2072

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1420

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,502

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1815

RON

Romanian leu

4,4093

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8842

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4496

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4139

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7838

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6171

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6085

KRW

South Korean won

1 342,39

ZAR

South African rand

14,2188

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7382

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6425

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 308,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1199

PHP

Philippine peso

56,557

RUB

Russian rouble

49,9202

THB

Thai baht

40,940

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0971

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9372

INR

Indian rupee

77,7857

---

(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.

---

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 28 April 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard-essential patents

Rapporteur: Bulgaria

2014/C 344/04

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission’s assessment in the draft decision that in the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of any objective justification, Motorola has infringed Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by seeking and enforcing an injunction against Apple before the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission’s assessment in the draft decision that in the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of any objective justification, Motorola has infringed Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by seeking and enforcing an injunction against Apple before the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission not to impose a fine on Motorola. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission not to impose a fine on Motorola.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

---

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/4

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents

(AT.39985)

2014/C 344/05

I.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | This case concerns the seeking and enforcing by Motorola Mobility LLC (‘Motorola’) of an injunction against Apple Inc. and some of its subsidiaries (‘Apple’) before German courts on the basis of a standard essential patent (‘SEP’) called ‘Cudak’ and covering the GPRS technology. Motorola had committed to license its Cudak SEP on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms in the context of the standard setting process in the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (‘ETSI’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

This case concerns the seeking and enforcing by Motorola Mobility LLC (‘Motorola’) of an injunction against Apple Inc. and some of its subsidiaries (‘Apple’) before German courts on the basis of a standard essential patent (‘SEP’) called ‘Cudak’ and covering the GPRS technology. Motorola had committed to license its Cudak SEP on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms in the context of the standard setting process in the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (‘ETSI’).

| (2) | The Commission started the investigation on the basis of a complaint received from Apple and initiated proceedings against Motorola on 2 April 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission started the investigation on the basis of a complaint received from Apple and initiated proceedings against Motorola on 2 April 2012.

II.   WRITTEN PROCEDURE

1.   Statement of Objections

| (3) | On 6 May 2013, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) and notified it to Motorola. In the SO the Commission reached the preliminary view that from 4 October 2011 to 29 May 2012 Motorola abused its dominant position by seeking and enforcing — in the exceptional circumstances of this case, which are the specific GPRS standard setting context and the commitment given by Motorola to ETSI to license on FRAND terms — an injunction in Germany on the basis of its Cudak SEP. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 6 May 2013, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) and notified it to Motorola. In the SO the Commission reached the preliminary view that from 4 October 2011 to 29 May 2012 Motorola abused its dominant position by seeking and enforcing — in the exceptional circumstances of this case, which are the specific GPRS standard setting context and the commitment given by Motorola to ETSI to license on FRAND terms — an injunction in Germany on the basis of its Cudak SEP.

| (4) | The Commission decided not to address the SO to Google Inc. (‘Google’), which had become Motorola’s parent on 22 May 2012, i.e. 7 days before the end of the infringement. Google is therefore not formally a party to the proceedings in Case AT.39985. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Commission decided not to address the SO to Google Inc. (‘Google’), which had become Motorola’s parent on 22 May 2012, i.e. 7 days before the end of the infringement. Google is therefore not formally a party to the proceedings in Case AT.39985.

2.   Time limit to reply to the SO

| (5) | DG Competition granted Motorola a deadline of 8 weeks to reply to the SO. Motorola did not request an extension and submitted its reply within the deadline on 2 July 2013. In the reply, it requested the opportunity to develop its arguments at an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

DG Competition granted Motorola a deadline of 8 weeks to reply to the SO. Motorola did not request an extension and submitted its reply within the deadline on 2 July 2013. In the reply, it requested the opportunity to develop its arguments at an oral hearing.

3.   Access to file

| (6) | On 6 May 2013, Motorola received access to the Commission file via CD-ROM/DVD. On 23 May 2013, it requested additional access to certain documents in the file, which DG Competition dealt with directly. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 6 May 2013, Motorola received access to the Commission file via CD-ROM/DVD. On 23 May 2013, it requested additional access to certain documents in the file, which DG Competition dealt with directly.

4.   Complainant

| (7) | As a complainant in this case, Apple received a copy of the non-confidential version of the SO (2), on which it submitted written observations. Upon its request, I also invited Apple to express its views at the oral hearing (3). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

As a complainant in this case, Apple received a copy of the non-confidential version of the SO (2), on which it submitted written observations. Upon its request, I also invited Apple to express its views at the oral hearing (3).

5.   Interested Third Persons

| (8) | On 20 February 2012, Google requested to be heard as an interested third person in any proceedings opened by the Commission against Motorola based on Apple’s complaint and to be granted access to the file. I rejected Google’s request because an application to be heard as an interested third person presupposes that proceedings have been initiated, which was not the case at that time. Furthermore, access to the file is granted only to the addressees of the SO, while interested third persons only have the right to be informed of the nature and subject matter of the proceedings (4). However, Google submitted unsolicited comments on Apple’s complaint, which DG Competition accepted in view of Google’s imminent acquisition of Motorola (5). |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 20 February 2012, Google requested to be heard as an interested third person in any proceedings opened by the Commission against Motorola based on Apple’s complaint and to be granted access to the file. I rejected Google’s request because an application to be heard as an interested third person presupposes that proceedings have been initiated, which was not the case at that time. Furthermore, access to the file is granted only to the addressees of the SO, while interested third persons only have the right to be informed of the nature and subject matter of the proceedings (4). However, Google submitted unsolicited comments on Apple’s complaint, which DG Competition accepted in view of Google’s imminent acquisition of Motorola (5).

| (9) | On 23 July 2013, I allowed upon its request Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Holding GmbH and Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A. (together ‘Samsung’) to be heard as an interested third person. I considered that Samsung had shown sufficient interest (6) in view of the fact that it is a large scale implementer of SEPs, including Motorola’s SEPs; it had engaged in licensing negotiations with Motorola with regard to SEPs and may conclude or consider concluding a cross license agreement with Motorola in the future; and it was the subject of parallel proceedings in Case AT.39939. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On 23 July 2013, I allowed upon its request Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Holding GmbH and Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A. (together ‘Samsung’) to be heard as an interested third person. I considered that Samsung had shown sufficient interest (6) in view of the fact that it is a large scale implementer of SEPs, including Motorola’s SEPs; it had engaged in licensing negotiations with Motorola with regard to SEPs and may conclude or consider concluding a cross license agreement with Motorola in the future; and it was the subject of parallel proceedings in Case AT.39939.

| (10) | Upon its request and following discussion with DG Competition, I also allowed Samsung to express its views at the oral hearing, based, inter alia, on the considerations that Samsung was also the addressee of a statement of objections in the parallel proceedings AT.39939 and that its presence did not harm the exercise by Motorola of its rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Upon its request and following discussion with DG Competition, I also allowed Samsung to express its views at the oral hearing, based, inter alia, on the considerations that Samsung was also the addressee of a statement of objections in the parallel proceedings AT.39939 and that its presence did not harm the exercise by Motorola of its rights of defence.

III.   ORAL HEARING

| (11) | The oral hearing took place on 30 September 2013. Motorola, Apple and Samsung participated. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The oral hearing took place on 30 September 2013. Motorola, Apple and Samsung participated.

IV.   THE DRAFT DECISION

| (12) | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with the objections in respect of which Motorola has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views, and I have come to a positive conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

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

| (13) | Overall, I conclude that all parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Overall, I conclude that all parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case.

Brussels, 28 April 2014.

Wouter WILS

---

(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)  Pursuant to Article 6(1) of 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) (‘Regulation No 773/2004’).

2

(3)  Pursuant to Articles 6(2) and 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Articles 6(2) and 12(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

3

(4)  Pursuant to Articles 15(1) and 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004.

4

(5)  See above at paragraph (4).

5

(6)  Pursuant to Article 27(3) of 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); Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004; and Article 5 of Decision 2011/695/EU.

6

---

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/6

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 29 April 2014

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.39985 — Motorola — Enforcement of GPRS standard essential patents)

(notified under document number C(2014) 2892 final)

(Only the English text is authentic)

2014/C 344/06

On 29 April 2014, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 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.

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | On 29 April 2014, the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Decision’), addressed to Motorola Mobility LLC (‘Motorola’). The Decision finds that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and in the absence of any objective justification, Motorola has infringed Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by seeking and enforcing an injunction against Apple Inc., Apple Sales International and Apple Retail Germany GmbH (‘Apple’) before the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany. Motorola sought and enforced the injunction on the basis of a standard-essential patent (‘SEP’) reading on the General Packet Radio Service (‘GPRS’) standard, which it has committed to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (‘ETSI’) to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 April 2014, the Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘the Decision’), addressed to Motorola Mobility LLC (‘Motorola’). The Decision finds that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and in the absence of any objective justification, Motorola has infringed Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by seeking and enforcing an injunction against Apple Inc., Apple Sales International and Apple Retail Germany GmbH (‘Apple’) before the courts of the Federal Republic of Germany. Motorola sought and enforced the injunction on the basis of a standard-essential patent (‘SEP’) reading on the General Packet Radio Service (‘GPRS’) standard, which it has committed to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (‘ETSI’) to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms and conditions.

2.   PROCEDURE

| (2) | On 14 February 2012, Apple submitted a complaint pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against Motorola with respect to Motorola’s enforcement in Germany of two patents that Motorola had declared essential to telecommunication standards, including a patent declared essential to the ETSI GSM/GPRS standard, which Motorola has committed to license on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 14 February 2012, Apple submitted a complaint pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against Motorola with respect to Motorola’s enforcement in Germany of two patents that Motorola had declared essential to telecommunication standards, including a patent declared essential to the ETSI GSM/GPRS standard, which Motorola has committed to license on FRAND terms and conditions.

| (3) | On 2 April 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings against Motorola. On 6 May 2013, the Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to Motorola. On 30 September 2013, an Oral Hearing took place. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 2 April 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings against Motorola. On 6 May 2013, the Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to Motorola. On 30 September 2013, an Oral Hearing took place.

| (4) | On 28 April 2014, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted. The Hearing Officer issued his final report the same day. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 28 April 2014, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted. The Hearing Officer issued his final report the same day.

3.   FACTS

| (5) | Standards ensure compatibility and interoperability of telecom networks and mobile devices. Mobile devices typically implement a large number of telecommunication standards (such as the so-called second generation or ‘2G’ (GSM/GPRS) standard). These standards make reference to thousands of technologies, many of which are protected by patents. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Standards ensure compatibility and interoperability of telecom networks and mobile devices. Mobile devices typically implement a large number of telecommunication standards (such as the so-called second generation or ‘2G’ (GSM/GPRS) standard). These standards make reference to thousands of technologies, many of which are protected by patents.

| (6) | Patents which are technically necessary to implement a standard, are known as ‘standard-essential patents’ or ‘SEPs’. SEPs are different from patents that are not essential to a standard (‘non-SEPs’). It is normally technically possible for the implementer of a non-SEP to design around that patent without sacrificing key functionality. By contrast, an implementer cannot avoid using the technology protected by a SEP when manufacturing a standard-compliant product such as a smartphone or a tablet. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Patents which are technically necessary to implement a standard, are known as ‘standard-essential patents’ or ‘SEPs’. SEPs are different from patents that are not essential to a standard (‘non-SEPs’). It is normally technically possible for the implementer of a non-SEP to design around that patent without sacrificing key functionality. By contrast, an implementer cannot avoid using the technology protected by a SEP when manufacturing a standard-compliant product such as a smartphone or a tablet.

| (7) | SEPs are therefore of great importance in industries such as the telecommunication industry, where for interoperability reasons, nearly 100 % of the devices implement the relevant standards. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

SEPs are therefore of great importance in industries such as the telecommunication industry, where for interoperability reasons, nearly 100 % of the devices implement the relevant standards.

| (8) | ETSI is one of the three European Standardisation Organisations. ETSI is officially responsible for producing standards and specifications supporting EU and EFTA policies and enabling an internal market in telecommunications. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

ETSI is one of the three European Standardisation Organisations. ETSI is officially responsible for producing standards and specifications supporting EU and EFTA policies and enabling an internal market in telecommunications.

| (9) | The rules of ETSI impose two main obligation on companies participating in the standard-setting process: (i) to inform ETSI of their essential intellectual property (‘IP’) in a timely fashion before the adoption of the standard, and (ii) to give a commitment to make their IP available on FRAND terms and conditions. The FRAND commitment is therefore a quid pro quo for a patented technology to be included in the standard. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The rules of ETSI impose two main obligation on companies participating in the standard-setting process: (i) to inform ETSI of their essential intellectual property (‘IP’) in a timely fashion before the adoption of the standard, and (ii) to give a commitment to make their IP available on FRAND terms and conditions. The FRAND commitment is therefore a quid pro quo for a patented technology to be included in the standard.

| (10) | In April 2003, Motorola declared patent EP 1010336 (the ‘Cudak GPRS SEP’) essential to the GPRS standard and committed to ETSI to license it on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In April 2003, Motorola declared patent EP 1010336 (the ‘Cudak GPRS SEP’) essential to the GPRS standard and committed to ETSI to license it on FRAND terms and conditions.

| (11) | Apple entered the mobile telecommunication sector in 2007 when it launched its first smartphone, the iPhone, which implemented the relevant telecommunication standards, including the GPRS standard. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Apple entered the mobile telecommunication sector in 2007 when it launched its first smartphone, the iPhone, which implemented the relevant telecommunication standards, including the GPRS standard.

| (12) | In April 2011, Motorola sought injunctions against Apple in Germany on the basis, inter alia, of its Cudak GPRS SEP. In the course of the injunction proceedings, Apple made six successive licensing offers to Motorola, which it also submitted to the German courts. These offers were made by Apple with a view to availing itself of the competition law defence established by the Bundesgerichtshof in its Orange Book judgment. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In April 2011, Motorola sought injunctions against Apple in Germany on the basis, inter alia, of its Cudak GPRS SEP. In the course of the injunction proceedings, Apple made six successive licensing offers to Motorola, which it also submitted to the German courts. These offers were made by Apple with a view to availing itself of the competition law defence established by the Bundesgerichtshof in its Orange Book judgment.

| (13) | In its second licensing offer, Apple proposed to enter into a licence agreement which would have given Motorola the right to set the royalties according to its equitable discretion and according to FRAND principles, without any limitations (other than FRAND and Article 102 TFEU) as regards the royalty rates and the method of calculation of the final amount of royalties. The offer also allowed for a full judicial review of the amount of FRAND royalties, whereby Motorola and Apple could submit their own evaluations, calculations and reasoning for consideration to the court. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

In its second licensing offer, Apple proposed to enter into a licence agreement which would have given Motorola the right to set the royalties according to its equitable discretion and according to FRAND principles, without any limitations (other than FRAND and Article 102 TFEU) as regards the royalty rates and the method of calculation of the final amount of royalties. The offer also allowed for a full judicial review of the amount of FRAND royalties, whereby Motorola and Apple could submit their own evaluations, calculations and reasoning for consideration to the court.

| (14) | Motorola, however, rejected that offer and continued the injunction proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Motorola, however, rejected that offer and continued the injunction proceedings.

| (15) | In December 2011, the lower German courts granted Motorola an injunction against Apple. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In December 2011, the lower German courts granted Motorola an injunction against Apple.

| (16) | In January 2012, when Motorola decided to enforce the injunction, Apple made its sixth licensing offer. In this offer, Apple (i) accepted a clause whereby Motorola would be entitled to terminate the agreement in case Apple challenged the validity of any of the licensed SEPs (the so-called ‘termination clause’); and (ii) explicitly acknowledged the infringement of the licensed SEPs by all of its devices, including an Apple device that it claimed was not infringing those SEPs. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

In January 2012, when Motorola decided to enforce the injunction, Apple made its sixth licensing offer. In this offer, Apple (i) accepted a clause whereby Motorola would be entitled to terminate the agreement in case Apple challenged the validity of any of the licensed SEPs (the so-called ‘termination clause’); and (ii) explicitly acknowledged the infringement of the licensed SEPs by all of its devices, including an Apple device that it claimed was not infringing those SEPs.

| (17) | Based on Apple’s sixth licensing offer, the German courts stayed temporarily the enforcement of the injunction, and Motorola and Apple signed a Settlement Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Based on Apple’s sixth licensing offer, the German courts stayed temporarily the enforcement of the injunction, and Motorola and Apple signed a Settlement Agreement.

4.   LEGAL ASSESSMENT

| (18) | The seeking and enforcement of an injunction by a patent-holder is generally a legitimate course of action. However, the context is different with regard to the seeking and enforcement of injunctions on the basis of SEPs for which a voluntary commitment to license on FRAND terms has been made during the standard-setting process. The essence of the commitment to license on FRAND terms and conditions is a recognition by a SEP holder that, given the purpose of the standardisation process, its essential patents will be licensed in return for FRAND remuneration, in contrast to those patents which do not read on a standard and for which no FRAND commitment has been given by the patent holder. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The seeking and enforcement of an injunction by a patent-holder is generally a legitimate course of action. However, the context is different with regard to the seeking and enforcement of injunctions on the basis of SEPs for which a voluntary commitment to license on FRAND terms has been made during the standard-setting process. The essence of the commitment to license on FRAND terms and conditions is a recognition by a SEP holder that, given the purpose of the standardisation process, its essential patents will be licensed in return for FRAND remuneration, in contrast to those patents which do not read on a standard and for which no FRAND commitment has been given by the patent holder.

| (19) | The Decision finds that Motorola is dominant on the market for the licensing of the technologies, as specified in the GPRS standard technical specifications, on which Motorola’s Cudak GPRS SEP reads. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Decision finds that Motorola is dominant on the market for the licensing of the technologies, as specified in the GPRS standard technical specifications, on which Motorola’s Cudak GPRS SEP reads.

| (20) | The Decision also finds that in the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of a valid objective justification, Motorola’s conduct constitutes an abuse as of Apple’s second licensing offer as its conduct was capable of having the following anti-competitive effects:






  (i) | a temporary ban on the online sale of Apple’s GPRS-compatible products in Germany; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(20)

The Decision also finds that in the exceptional circumstances of the case and in the absence of a valid objective justification, Motorola’s conduct constitutes an abuse as of Apple’s second licensing offer as its conduct was capable of having the following anti-competitive effects:

(i)

a temporary ban on the online sale of Apple’s GPRS-compatible products in Germany;

| (ii) | the inclusion in the Settlement agreement of licensing terms, disadvantageous to Apple; and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the inclusion in the Settlement agreement of licensing terms, disadvantageous to Apple; and

| (iii) | a negative impact on standard-setting. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

a negative impact on standard-setting.

| (21) | The exceptional circumstances are the GPRS standard-setting process and Motorola’s commitment to license the GPRS SEP on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The exceptional circumstances are the GPRS standard-setting process and Motorola’s commitment to license the GPRS SEP on FRAND terms and conditions.

| (22) | The absence of objective justification relates to the fact that Apple was not unwilling to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The absence of objective justification relates to the fact that Apple was not unwilling to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions.

| (23) | A SEP holder which has given a commitment to license on FRAND terms and conditions is entitled to take reasonable steps to protect its interests by seeking and enforcing an injunction against a potential licensee in, for example, the following scenarios:






  (a) | the potential licensee is in financial distress and unable to pay its debts; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(23)

A SEP holder which has given a commitment to license on FRAND terms and conditions is entitled to take reasonable steps to protect its interests by seeking and enforcing an injunction against a potential licensee in, for example, the following scenarios:

(a)

the potential licensee is in financial distress and unable to pay its debts;

| (b) | the potential licensee’s assets are located in jurisdictions that do not provide for adequate means of enforcement of damages; or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the potential licensee’s assets are located in jurisdictions that do not provide for adequate means of enforcement of damages; or

| (c) | the potential licensee is unwilling to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions, with the result that the SEP holder will not be appropriately remunerated for the use of its SEPs. The corollary of a patent holder committing, in the standardisation context, to license its SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions is that a potential licensee should not be unwilling to enter into a licensing agreement on FRAND terms and conditions for the SEPs in question. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the potential licensee is unwilling to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions, with the result that the SEP holder will not be appropriately remunerated for the use of its SEPs. The corollary of a patent holder committing, in the standardisation context, to license its SEPs on FRAND terms and conditions is that a potential licensee should not be unwilling to enter into a licensing agreement on FRAND terms and conditions for the SEPs in question.

| (24) | Apple’s second licensing offer, allowing for judicial rate-setting, constitutes a clear indication that Apple was willing to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions with Motorola, and pay FRAND remuneration for the licensed SEPs. Therefore, as of that licensing offer, there was no need for Motorola to have recourse to an injunction in order to be appropriately remunerated for the use of its SEPs. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Apple’s second licensing offer, allowing for judicial rate-setting, constitutes a clear indication that Apple was willing to enter into a licence agreement on FRAND terms and conditions with Motorola, and pay FRAND remuneration for the licensed SEPs. Therefore, as of that licensing offer, there was no need for Motorola to have recourse to an injunction in order to be appropriately remunerated for the use of its SEPs.

5.   FINES

| (25) | The Commission decided not to impose a fine on Motorola in view of the fact that there is no case-law by the European Union Courts dealing with the legality under Article 102 TFEU of SEP-based injunctions and that national courts have so far reached diverging conclusions on this question. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission decided not to impose a fine on Motorola in view of the fact that there is no case-law by the European Union Courts dealing with the legality under Article 102 TFEU of SEP-based injunctions and that national courts have so far reached diverging conclusions on this question.

---

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

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/9

---

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1 j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty) (General block exemption regulation)

2014/C 344/07

PART I

| Aid reference | GBER 6/2014/ENV |
| --- | --- |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | All regions in Poland | Regional aid status |
| Granting authority | Name | Innovation Norway |
| | Address | PO Box 448 Sentrum |
| N-0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Aid reference

GBER 6/2014/ENV

EFTA State

Norway

Region

All regions in Poland

Regional aid status

Granting authority

Name

Innovation Norway

Address

PO Box 448 Sentrum

N-0104 Oslo

NORWAY

Webpage

http://innovasjonnorge.no

Title of the aid measure

Norwegian Financial Mechanisms 2009-2014.

Green Industry Innovation Programme Poland

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Prop. 1 S (2012-2013) ‘The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ pages 85-95

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/regpubl/prop/2012-2013/prop-1-s-20122013.html?id=703276

Web link to the full text of the aid measure

www.norwaygrants-greeninnovation.no

Type of measure

Scheme

Yes

Duration

Scheme

4.12.2012 to 30.4.2017

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

All sectors

Type of beneficiary

SME

Yes

Large enterprises

No

Budget

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

Total amount (2014-2017)

EUR 17 783 000

PART II

| General Objectives (list) | Objectives (list) | Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in NOK | SME — bonuses in % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Regional investment and employment aid (Article 13) | Scheme | The aid intensity in present gross grant equivalent shall not exceed the regional aid threshold which is in force at the time the aid is granted in the assisted region concerned in Poland. | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium sized enterprises |
| SME investment and employment aid
  (Article 15) | | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises | |
| Aid for Environmental protection
  (Article 17-25) | Investment aid enabling undertakings to go beyond Community standards for environmental protection or increase the level of environmental protection in the absence of Community standards
  (Article 18) | 35 % | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises |
| | Aid for the acquisition of new transport vehicles which go beyond Community standards or which increase the level of environmental protection in the absence of Community standards
  (Article 19) | 35 % | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises |
| | Aid for early adaptation to future Community standards for SMEs
  (Article 20) | 15 % for small enterprises and 10 % for medium-sized enterprises, if the implementation and finalisation takes place more than three years before the date of entry into force of the standard (10 %for small enterprises if less than three years) | |
| | Environmental investment aid for energy saving measures
  (Article 21) | 60 % | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises |
| | Environmental investment aid for high efficiency cogeneration
  (Article 22) | 45 % | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises |
| | Environmental investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable energy sources
  (Article 23) | 45 % | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises |
| | Aid for environmental studies
  (Article 24) | 50 % | 20 % for small enterprises
  10 % for medium-sized enterprises |
| Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs and SME participation in fairs
  (Article 26-27) | Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs
  (Article 26) | 50 % | |
| | Aid for SME participation in fairs
  (Article 27) | 50 % | |
| Aid in the form of risk capital
  (Article 28-29) | | Up to EUR 1,5 million per target undertaking over any period of 12 months | |
| Aid for research, development and innovation
  (Article 30-37) | Aid for research and development projects (Article 31) | Fundamental research
  (Article 31(2)(a)) | 100 % | |
| | | Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b)) | 50 % | 10 % for medium-sized enterprises
  20 % for small enterprises
  A bonus of 15 % may be added up to a maximum aid intensity of 80 % if conditions in Art 31(4)(b) are fulfilled. |
| | | Experimental development
  (Article 31(2)(c)) | 25 % | 10 % for medium-sized enterprises
  20 % for small enterprises
  A bonus of 15 % may be added up to a maximum aid intensity of 80 % if conditions in Art 31(4)(b) are fulfilled. |
| | Aid for technical feasibility studies
  (Article 32) | 75 % (industrial research) and 50 % (experimental development) for SMEs
  65 % (industrial research) and 40 % (experimental development)for large enterprises | |
| | Aid for industrial property rights costs for SMEs
  (Article 33) | Aid intensity shall not exceed the intensity for research and development project aid
  Art 31(3-4) | |
| Training aid
  (Article 38-39) | Specific training
  (Article 38(1)) | 25 % | 10 % for medium-sized enterprises
  20 % for small enterprises |
| | General training
  (Article 38(2)) | 60 % | 10 % for medium-sized enterprises
  20 % for small enterprises |

General Objectives (list)

Objectives (list)

Maximum aid intensity in % or Maximum aid amount in NOK

SME — bonuses in %

Regional investment and employment aid (Article 13)

Scheme

The aid intensity in present gross grant equivalent shall not exceed the regional aid threshold which is in force at the time the aid is granted in the assisted region concerned in Poland.

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium sized enterprises

SME investment and employment aid

(Article 15)

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Aid for Environmental protection

(Article 17-25)

Investment aid enabling undertakings to go beyond Community standards for environmental protection or increase the level of environmental protection in the absence of Community standards

(Article 18)

35 %

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Aid for the acquisition of new transport vehicles which go beyond Community standards or which increase the level of environmental protection in the absence of Community standards

(Article 19)

35 %

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Aid for early adaptation to future Community standards for SMEs

(Article 20)

15 % for small enterprises and 10 % for medium-sized enterprises, if the implementation and finalisation takes place more than three years before the date of entry into force of the standard (10 %for small enterprises if less than three years)

Environmental investment aid for energy saving measures

(Article 21)

60 %

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Environmental investment aid for high efficiency cogeneration

(Article 22)

45 %

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Environmental investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable energy sources

(Article 23)

45 %

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Aid for environmental studies

(Article 24)

50 %

20 % for small enterprises

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs and SME participation in fairs

(Article 26-27)

Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs

(Article 26)

50 %

Aid for SME participation in fairs

(Article 27)

50 %

Aid in the form of risk capital

(Article 28-29)

Up to EUR 1,5 million per target undertaking over any period of 12 months

Aid for research, development and innovation

(Article 30-37)

Aid for research and development projects (Article 31)

Fundamental research

(Article 31(2)(a))

100 %

Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b))

50 %

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

20 % for small enterprises

A bonus of 15 % may be added up to a maximum aid intensity of 80 % if conditions in Art 31(4)(b) are fulfilled.

Experimental development

(Article 31(2)(c))

25 %

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

20 % for small enterprises

A bonus of 15 % may be added up to a maximum aid intensity of 80 % if conditions in Art 31(4)(b) are fulfilled.

Aid for technical feasibility studies

(Article 32)

75 % (industrial research) and 50 % (experimental development) for SMEs

65 % (industrial research) and 40 % (experimental development)for large enterprises

Aid for industrial property rights costs for SMEs

(Article 33)

Aid intensity shall not exceed the intensity for research and development project aid

Art 31(3-4)

Training aid

(Article 38-39)

Specific training

(Article 38(1))

25 %

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

20 % for small enterprises

General training

(Article 38(2))

60 %

10 % for medium-sized enterprises

20 % for small enterprises

---

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/13

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2014/C 344/08

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 11 June 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 75349 |
| Decision No | : | 219/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | State aid scheme for broadband rollout |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | State aid scheme |
| Objective | : | Broadband |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | NOK 500 million annually, NOK 2 billion total |
| Duration | : | Until 31.12.2017 |
| Economic sectors | : | Telecommunications |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority |
| Postboks 63 |
| N-4791 Lillesand |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

11 June 2014

Case number

:

75349

Decision No

:

219/14/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

State aid scheme for broadband rollout

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

:

State aid scheme

Objective

:

Broadband

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

:

NOK 500 million annually, NOK 2 billion total

Duration

:

Until 31.12.2017

Economic sectors

:

Telecommunications

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority

Postboks 63

N-4791 Lillesand

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/14

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2014/C 344/09

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 18 June 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 74204 |
| Decision No | : | 225/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | All very sparsely populated regions |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Regionally differentiated social security contribution |
| Legal basis | : | The annual Resolution of the Parliament on rates for social security contributions etc., and Section 23-2 of Act No 19 of 28 February 1997 relating to the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygdloven) |
| Type of measure | : | Operating aid |
| Objective | : | To reduce or prevent depopulation in the least populated regions in Norway by stimulating employment in these regions |
| Form of aid | : | Tax reduction |
| Budget | : | Fiscal effect approximately EUR 900 million annually |
| Intensity | : | 3,1 to 12,4 |
| Duration | : | 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2020 |
| Economic sectors | : | Horizontal. All sectors covered by the Regional Aid Guidelines 2014-2020 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Government of Norway |
| Other information | : | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

18 June 2014

Case number

:

74204

Decision No

:

225/14/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

:

All very sparsely populated regions

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Regionally differentiated social security contribution

Legal basis

:

The annual Resolution of the Parliament on rates for social security contributions etc., and Section 23-2 of Act No 19 of 28 February 1997 relating to the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygdloven)

Type of measure

:

Operating aid

Objective

:

To reduce or prevent depopulation in the least populated regions in Norway by stimulating employment in these regions

Form of aid

:

Tax reduction

Budget

:

Fiscal effect approximately EUR 900 million annually

Intensity

:

3,1 to 12,4

Duration

:

1 July 2014 to 31 December 2020

Economic sectors

:

Horizontal. All sectors covered by the Regional Aid Guidelines 2014-2020

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Government of Norway

Other information

:

—

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/15

---

Call for proposals 2015 — EAC/A04/2014

Erasmus+ Programme

2014/C 344/10

1.   Introduction and objectives

This call for proposals is based on the Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union Programme for education, training, youth and sport as well as on the 2014 Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme — International dimension of Higher Education (Heading 4) and 2015 Erasmus+ Annual Work Programme. The Erasmus+ Programme covers the period 2014 to 2020. The specific objectives of the Erasmus+ Programme are listed in Articles 5, 11 and 16 of the Regulation.

2.   Actions

This call for proposals covers the following actions of the Erasmus+ Programme:

Key Action 1 (KA1) — Learning mobility of individuals

| — | Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth |
| --- | --- |

—

Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth

| — | Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees |
| --- | --- |

—

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

| — | Large Scale European Voluntary Service Events |
| --- | --- |

—

Large Scale European Voluntary Service Events

Key Action 2 (KA2) — Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices

| — | Strategic partnerships in the field of education, training and youth |
| --- | --- |

—

Strategic partnerships in the field of education, training and youth

| — | Knowledge Alliances |
| --- | --- |

—

Knowledge Alliances

| — | Sector Skills Alliances |
| --- | --- |

—

Sector Skills Alliances

| — | Capacity building in the field of higher education |
| --- | --- |

—

Capacity building in the field of higher education

| — | Capacity building in the field of youth |
| --- | --- |

—

Capacity building in the field of youth

Key Action 3 (KA3) — Support for policy reform

| — | Structured Dialogue: Meetings between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth |
| --- | --- |

—

Structured Dialogue: Meetings between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth

Jean Monnet activities

| — | Jean Monnet Chairs |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Chairs

| — | Jean Monnet Modules |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Modules

| — | Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence

| — | Jean Monnet Support to Institutions and Associations |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Support to Institutions and Associations

| — | Jean Monnet Networks |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Networks

| — | Jean Monnet Projects |
| --- | --- |

—

Jean Monnet Projects

Sport

| — | Collaborative partnerships in the sport field |
| --- | --- |

—

Collaborative partnerships in the sport field

| — | Not-for-profit European sport events |
| --- | --- |

—

Not-for-profit European sport events

3.   Eligibility

Any public or private body active in the fields of education, training, youth and sport may apply for funding within the Erasmus+ Programme. In addition, groups of young people who are active in youth work, but not necessarily in the context of a youth organisation, may apply for funding for learning mobility of young people and youth workers as well as for Strategic partnerships in the field of youth.

The Erasmus+ Programme is open to the participation of the following countries (1):

The following Programme countries can fully take part in all Erasmus+ Programme actions:

| — | the 28 Member States of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 28 Member States of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway,

| — | EU candidate countries: Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
| --- | --- |

—

EU candidate countries: Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

In addition, certain Erasmus+ Programme actions are open to organisations from partner countries.

Please refer to the Erasmus+ Programme Guide for further details on the modalities of participation.

4.   Budget and duration of projects

The total budget earmarked for this call for proposals is estimated at EUR 1 736,4 million:

| Education and Training | : | EUR 1 536,5 million (2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Youth | : | EUR 171,7 million |
| Jean Monnet | : | EUR 11,4 million |
| Sport | : | EUR 16,8 million |

Education and Training

:

EUR 1 536,5 million (2)

Youth

:

EUR 171,7 million

Jean Monnet

:

EUR 11,4 million

Sport

:

EUR 16,8 million

The total budget earmarked for the call for proposals as well as its repartition is indicative and may be modified subject to an amendment of the Erasmus+ Annual Work Programmes. Potential applicants are invited to regularly consult the Erasmus+ Annual Work Programmes and their amendments, published on:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/index_en.htm

as regards the available budget for each action covered by the call.

The level of grants awarded as well as the duration of projects vary depending on factors such as the type of project and the number of partners involved.

5.   Deadline for the submission of applications

All deadlines for submission of applications specified below end at 12.00 (noon), Brussels time.

Key Action 1

| Mobility of individuals in the field of youth | 4 February 2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of education and training | 4 March 2015 |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of youth | 30 April 2015 |
| Mobility of individuals in the field of youth | 1 October 2015 |
| Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees | 4 March 2015 |
| Large scale European Voluntary Service events | 3 April 2015 |

Mobility of individuals in the field of youth

4 February 2015

Mobility of individuals in the field of education and training

4 March 2015

Mobility of individuals in the field of youth

30 April 2015

Mobility of individuals in the field of youth

1 October 2015

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

4 March 2015

Large scale European Voluntary Service events

3 April 2015

Key Action 2

| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 4 February 2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of education, training and youth | 30 April 2015 |
| Strategic partnerships in the field of youth | 1 October 2015 |
| Knowledge Alliances, Sector Skills Alliances | 26 February 2015 |
| Capacity building in the field of higher education | 10 February 2015 |
| Capacity building in the field of youth | 3 April 2015
  2 September 2015 |

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

4 February 2015

Strategic partnerships in the field of education, training and youth

30 April 2015

Strategic partnerships in the field of youth

1 October 2015

Knowledge Alliances, Sector Skills Alliances

26 February 2015

Capacity building in the field of higher education

10 February 2015

Capacity building in the field of youth

3 April 2015

2 September 2015

Key Action 3

| Meeting between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth | 4 February 2015
  30 April 2015
  1 October 2015 |
| --- | --- |

Meeting between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth

4 February 2015

30 April 2015

1 October 2015

Jean Monnet actions

| Chairs, Modules, Centres of Excellence, Support to Institutions and Associations, Networks, Projects | 26 February 2015 |
| --- | --- |

Chairs, Modules, Centres of Excellence, Support to Institutions and Associations, Networks, Projects

26 February 2015

Sport actions

| Collaborative partnerships in the sport field related to the European Week of Sport 2015 only | 22 January 2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Collaborative partnerships in the sport field not related to the European Week of Sport 2015 | 14 May 2015 |
| Not-for-profit European sport events related to the European Week of Sport 2015 only | 22 January 2015 |
| Not-for-profit European sport events not related to the European Week of Sport 2015 | 14 May 2015 |

Collaborative partnerships in the sport field related to the European Week of Sport 2015 only

22 January 2015

Collaborative partnerships in the sport field not related to the European Week of Sport 2015

14 May 2015

Not-for-profit European sport events related to the European Week of Sport 2015 only

22 January 2015

Not-for-profit European sport events not related to the European Week of Sport 2015

14 May 2015

Please refer to the Erasmus+ Programme Guide for detailed instructions for the submission of applications.

6.   Full details

The detailed conditions of this call for proposals, including priorities, can be found in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide at the following internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/discover/guide/index_en.htm

The Erasmus+ Programme Guide constitutes an integral part of this call for proposals and the conditions for participation and funding expressed therein apply in full to this call.

---

(1)  Except for the Jean Monnet activities that are open to applications from higher education institutions from the whole world.

(2)  This amount includes the funds for the International dimension of Higher Education (EUR 267,7 million in total).

---

Corrigenda

| 2.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/18

---

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency for the financial year 2013 — amending budget No 2

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 58 of 28 February 2014
  )

2014/C 344/11

On the cover page and page 33:

for:

‘Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency for the financial year 2013 — amending budget No 2’,

read:

read:

‘Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency for the financial year 2013 — amending budget No 2’;

on page 35, Title 3 and Grand total of the expenditure shall read as follows:

| ‘Title Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2013 | Amending budget
  No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3 | TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT EXPENDITURES | | | |
| 3 1 | MEETINGS OF EXPERTS, CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS | 1 500 | | 1 500 |
| 3 2 | INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS | 101 200 | | 101 200 |
| 3 3 | OTHER TECHNICAL EXPENSES AND OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT | 427 300 | | 427 300 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 530 000 | | 530 000 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 9 805 000 | | 9 805 000’ |

‘Title Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2013

Amending budget

No 2

New amount

3

TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT EXPENDITURES

3 1

MEETINGS OF EXPERTS, CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS

1 500

1 500

3 2

INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS

101 200

101 200

3 3

OTHER TECHNICAL EXPENSES AND OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

427 300

427 300

Title 3 — Total

530 000

530 000

GRAND TOTAL

9 805 000

9 805 000’

---